time big bang

Im calm and my question is clear, the problem is that you refuse to answer any question that might just show your inability to consider my reasoning.

Well, why don ` t you try to ask me again. Be more coherent, because i cannot read your mind.

you can` t say the bb is philosophy. It is part of science, and for all that we know, the bb might be explicable by physical laws.

Read the posts more carefully. No one is saying the big bang is philosophy. It's a cosmological explanation. But that doesn't prohibit philosophical discussion about it, right? The only point of interest for me here is that physics only goes so far (I doubt that any new laws of physics will be found ... but that's open for debate). Metaphysics goes beyond physics, so we can use deductive reasoning to speculate about a Cause for the big bang. Physics is not the only instrument we have to arrive at understanding. Philosophy can help, if the method is strict and rigorous enough ... which I'm assuming is what you're looking for (as opposed to groundless, or unsupported speculations). Immanuel Kant, despite the present analytic tradition of philosophy, still has relevance to the subject of metaphysics ... and here, he continues to be sorely misunderstood.

Kant asks for a 'science of metaphysics.' I think his approach is one that if followed, would result in a strict system of deductive reasoning that would present a metaphysical solution to the question of the origin of the universe that's consistent from its premise to its final conclusion.

The question goes far beyond the scope of physics. Only metaphysics holds out the possibility of a solution.

Im calm and my question is clear, the problem is that you refuse to answer any question that might just show your inability to consider my reasoning.

Xris the BB singularity was not a black hole or any hole for that matter, according to science it was point particle of infinite density and zero dimension

But is reality it is all speculation!

Maybe that answer will satisfy your new hostile friend (or enemy) :bigsmile:

Alan im not asking to imagine the bb as a giant black hole but imagine all the mass and energy the universe contains and bring it all together. Now with the gravitational effect of that proposal do you think space or time could escape? Do you think it would be visible?

According to no less than Einstein at the almost infinite gravity that existed in the BB singularity, time should not have flowed, entropy being zero then, so cause and effect could not have happened.

But the universe did not know that time could not flow in a field of infinite gravity and proved Einstein wrong and somehow started the clock of eternity against all the logic of physics

Astrophysicist tell us at the event horizon of of a black hole, due to the enormous gravity time stands still or stops. But the conditions in the BB were much more severe yet time flowed against all known logic

If this enormous mass was not apparent in time and space how can we be so certain it existed. If we can not examine prior to this event how can we be so certain that it had a chain of events prior to this event. I still maintain that no theory of its cause satisfies any known laws or can propose any reasoned reasoning. When men of science say it must be an event with a cause they refuse to enter into meaningful dialogue about the possibilities. I maintain it came from nothing, can anyone prove otherwise?

You see at the moment before creation, just before the universe was to begin to emerge from the singularity, time indeed stood still. like a primordial stopwatch, someone clicked this primordial stopwatch and allowed it to run for as long as our universe will exist

Yes Alan but did it have a history of eternity of nothing or did it appear from nothing and is there difference?

You see at the moment before creation, just before the universe was to begin to emerge from the singularity, time indeed stood still. like a primordial stopwatch, someone clicked this primordial stopwatch and allowed it to run for as long as our universe will exist

I simple wish for those who oppose my reasoning to stop saying we dont know and to advance alternatives we could examine.

Well, here's one:

There was never an absolute singularity. The volume of the universe was never zero, and its density was never infinite. The previously existing laws caused a contraction, or some other process, which gave the universe an extremely high (but finite) density that destroyed or radically changed those old laws, and resulted in the laws that we observe today. Time and/or space was affected in such a way that no trace of the earlier laws remains.

What evidence do I have for this scenario? None whatever - but nor is there any evidence for a contrary view.

.

What, if anything, preceded moment A, or whether there was a moment A, is something to which I will not venture an answer. Speculation about "nothing" or "nothingness" is too abstract for me to make sense of. But I cannot rule out the possibility that something positive existed before the BB. I don't see why the burden of proof should be on those who think it did. We simply don't know either way.

I simple wish for those who oppose my reasoning to stop saying we dont know and to advance alternatives we could examine. If we leave it simple to science, it will never be resolved.

How about a collapse and a rebound -expansion then collapse then expansion then collapse. The zero point would simply be a transition between one state and the other -a sudden state of equilibrium just before the next stage. This would explain the zero state of time, momentarily moving from one direction to the other ... backwards with collapse, forwards with expansion.

Just one other way to speculate about it.

How about this xris our universe is a white hole spewing out from a huge black hole in one of an infinite number of other universes. No need for God then

How about a collapse and a rebound -expansion then collapse then expansion then collapse. The zero point would simply be a transition between one state and the other -a sudden state of equilibrium just before the next stage. This would explain the zero state of time, momentarily moving from one direction to the other ... backwards with collapse, forwards with expansion.

There is a problem with the idea of time moving backwards. Suppose it is now 2009, and time is going backwards. In which direction would my memory point? Would I remember the events of 2008, or those of 2010? If I (and everyone else) remembered 2008, then time would still appear to be going forwards for everyone; there would be no external reference frame in which time could be said to be going backwards, so the idea would be meaningless. If, on the other hand, we all remembered 2010 and not 2008, our mental state would be different from what it had been on the forward journey, so the backward journey would not involve an exact reversal of events, but something new. So, in that case too, we might as well say that time is still moving forwards.