Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Profound

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 12:17:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

A vacuum is not nothing, and absence of physical matter and energy, in a dimensional space, is not nothing.

Nothing is the absence of anything, so how could it exist.

It is not possible to tell WHEN nothing existed; because to tell WHEN, it needs to exist in time, and if it exists in time, it is not nothing.

it is not possible, either to tell WHERE nothing existed; because to tell WHERE it is, it needs to exist in space, and if it exists in space, it's not nothing.

Because it has no measurable properties, by definition; it is not possible to tell whether nothing exists, and never will be.

There is NOTHING north of the north pole; there is point in space, or time that is north of the north pole, there is no mass or energy north of the north pole; does that nothing actually exist?

Nothing is effectively a description of a lack of any existence; and as such, no, by definition it does not exist.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 1:06:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

When? Time must have existed in order for your question to be coherent.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 11:59:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 12:17:07 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

A vacuum is not nothing, and absence of physical matter and energy, in a dimensional space, is not nothing.

Nothing is the absence of anything, so how could it exist.

It is not possible to tell WHEN nothing existed; because to tell WHEN, it needs to exist in time, and if it exists in time, it is not nothing.

it is not possible, either to tell WHERE nothing existed; because to tell WHERE it is, it needs to exist in space, and if it exists in space, it's not nothing.


Because it has no measurable properties, by definition; it is not possible to tell whether nothing exists, and never will be.


There is NOTHING north of the north pole; there is point in space, or time that is north of the north pole, there is no mass or energy north of the north pole; does that nothing actually exist?

Nothing is effectively a description of a lack of any existence; and as such, no, by definition it does not exist.

ME: "Oh! Darling that was wonderful, nothing is better than that." So why not just have nothing instead of wasting all that energy?

Nothing is a description..Does nothing have description, rather than an anti- description.

"I have nothing, but I am happy."

Nothing is profound, except nothing is.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:01:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 1:06:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

When? Time must have existed in order for your question to be coherent.

ME: Nothing dictates the actions of nothing. Is nothing coherent?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:44:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 11:59:30 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/13/2016 12:17:07 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

A vacuum is not nothing, and absence of physical matter and energy, in a dimensional space, is not nothing.

Nothing is the absence of anything, so how could it exist.

It is not possible to tell WHEN nothing existed; because to tell WHEN, it needs to exist in time, and if it exists in time, it is not nothing.

it is not possible, either to tell WHERE nothing existed; because to tell WHERE it is, it needs to exist in space, and if it exists in space, it's not nothing.


Because it has no measurable properties, by definition; it is not possible to tell whether nothing exists, and never will be.


There is NOTHING north of the north pole; there is point in space, or time that is north of the north pole, there is no mass or energy north of the north pole; does that nothing actually exist?

Nothing is effectively a description of a lack of any existence; and as such, no, by definition it does not exist.

ME: "Oh! Darling that was wonderful, nothing is better than that." So why not just have nothing instead of wasting all that energy?

Nothing is a description..Does nothing have description, rather than an anti- description.

"I have nothing, but I am happy."

Nothing is profound, except nothing is.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything I just said.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:58:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"


It doesn't "effect" anything because it's a false statement. "Nothing" does exist, and it exists EXACTLY as described, a no-thing. I can show you in a simple science experiment.

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.


I personally have NEVER in my life heard of people talk about something that doesn't exist. And since there is a lot of talk about "nothing", it must exist, and I have discovered "nothing".

Nothing is NOT a state of being, it is a "thing" just as all the other "things" in creation, and it's properties are: no smell, taste, size, weight, texture, (what else did I leave out?) anyways, "nothing" is just that, a "no-thing" It is there though and I can prove it.

Only here is the problem: Since religion has dominated science for so long, people, including scientists could not accept the existence of "nothing", or it will destroy millions of books on BB-Evolution that depends on "nothing" not existing. Once people have been convinced that "nothing" does not exist, deified gods can create a "universe from nothing". Religion $el$, it makes money, and money has control of the masses. It's all about control!

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".


Nothing exists, so don't accept religious scientists comment that: "Nothing is not nothing anymore" garbage. I can assure you that nothing exists as nothing, and just as Infinite exists as "Infinite", .. not some limited, finite version of infinite, or "into infinity and beyond!" Buzz Lightyear joke.

Can you accept there was once nothing? :

Of course, and we have nothing everywhere, right next to other things. Infinite contains all "things", and no-thing or nothing is a very important part of creation. You couldn't distinguish between "things" if it weren't for the "nothing"!!

Actually, the way I see it is that "nothing" is like a sheet of paper, on which the existence of every-"thing" was drawn on. Space would be defined by particles on "nothing" (paper) so even space is something, and not "nothing".

This is NOT my opinion, .. or assumption of "nothing" but is an observable and documentable fact, just as "Infinite" is. Why?
Because my faith is built on Evidence with Substance, .. not religious Sci-Fi assumptions.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 3:44:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 12:01:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/13/2016 1:06:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

When? Time must have existed in order for your question to be coherent.

ME: Nothing dictates the actions of nothing. Is nothing coherent?

ME: Try answering the question. When?
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 7:54:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 3:44:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/14/2016 12:01:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/13/2016 1:06:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

When? Time must have existed in order for your question to be coherent.

ME: Nothing dictates the actions of nothing. Is nothing coherent?

ME: Try answering the question. When?

ME: Maybe there is hope for nothing yet.......Where there is nothing, nothing exists, or can exist.

One can prove nothing, or is nothing provable. If nothing was provable, where is the proof?

Nothing I say has anything to do with anything, not religion or science it is pure profundity, if nothing else.

However, having said that , let me say this...I appears that I am not the only deeply profound one here. Profound being used in place of slightly insane.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 8:11:52 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

That's nothing. You know what's really profound? This statement: I do not know where family doctors acquired illegibly perplexing handwriting; nevertheless, extraordinary pharmaceutical intellectuality, counterbalancing indecipherability, transcendentalizes intercommunications" incomprehensibleness.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:58:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.

ME: I really don't want to hi-jack my own post, but you have said something that I find interesting, in regards to 'nothing'.

You are saying that thee was always something that was sufficient to create, by randomness, the big bang, if that is the way you think that the cosmos began.

If that is the case how did that something arrive? How did it carry all the DNA or codes of everything that was ever in existence?

Are you not saying that the creation theory is not plausible because of the thought that an almighty spirit being was responsible for the ordered creation and placing of everything in a correct place for human and animal, and every other thing either animate or inanimate life to exist? Of course, this is exactly what you now propose, but it all happened by chance, from just the right composition of elements needed.

Again, there is no reason, from science or the Biblical account of Creation, why other such systematic and perfectly balanced "Earths" are not also in existence. As a creationist, that thought has no bearing on our this earth existence

You also say that there was never just nothing, and you know no other scientist that believes otherwise; are you sure?

"Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said. Stephen Hawking.

Hawking has influenced a great number of scientists, of many different disciplines into his way of thinking.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 12:02:37 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:58:58 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.

ME: I really don't want to hi-jack my own post, but you have said something that I find interesting, in regards to 'nothing'.

You are saying that thee was always something that was sufficient to create, by randomness, the big bang, if that is the way you think that the cosmos began.

No, I haven't said that either, Peter. As an empiricist I identify subjects by observed behaviour: the behaviour defines the subject. If you want to talk about a dog, you must define how it looks and behaves, and then I know what you mean.

So if there's no behaviour to observe, or the observations are murky, there's no definition of subject, and any attempt to talk about an undefined subject is by definition, incoherent.

Therefore the questions of 'nothing from nothing' or 'something from nothing' are meaningless to me. Nobody can tell me how to observe nothing. We only observe somethings, so that's what I talk about.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 2:51:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 8:11:52 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

That's nothing. You know what's really profound? This statement: I do not know where family doctors acquired illegibly perplexing handwriting; nevertheless, extraordinary pharmaceutical intellectuality, counterbalancing indecipherability, transcendentalizes intercommunications" incomprehensibleness.

ME: I've always said that.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 2:57:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 12:02:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:58:58 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.

ME: I really don't want to hi-jack my own post, but you have said something that I find interesting, in regards to 'nothing'.

You are saying that thee was always something that was sufficient to create, by randomness, the big bang, if that is the way you think that the cosmos began.

No, I haven't said that either, Peter. As an empiricist I identify subjects by observed behaviour: the behaviour defines the subject. If you want to talk about a dog, you must define how it looks and behaves, and then I know what you mean.

So if there's no behaviour to observe, or the observations are murky, there's no definition of subject, and any attempt to talk about an undefined subject is by definition, incoherent.

Therefore the questions of 'nothing from nothing' or 'something from nothing' are meaningless to me. Nobody can tell me how to observe nothing. We only observe somethings, so that's what I talk about.

ME: Hokay! let's try this. What was before the big bang and how long was it there. You will find difficulty with answering this as well, as you say you cannot talk about something that you have not OBSERVED...Who old are ya'?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 3:53:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 2:57:02 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/15/2016 12:02:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:58:58 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.

ME: I really don't want to hi-jack my own post, but you have said something that I find interesting, in regards to 'nothing'.

You are saying that thee was always something that was sufficient to create, by randomness, the big bang, if that is the way you think that the cosmos began.

No, I haven't said that either, Peter. As an empiricist I identify subjects by observed behaviour: the behaviour defines the subject. If you want to talk about a dog, you must define how it looks and behaves, and then I know what you mean.

So if there's no behaviour to observe, or the observations are murky, there's no definition of subject, and any attempt to talk about an undefined subject is by definition, incoherent.

Therefore the questions of 'nothing from nothing' or 'something from nothing' are meaningless to me. Nobody can tell me how to observe nothing. We only observe somethings, so that's what I talk about.

What was before the big bang and how long was it there.
There are assumptions in your question that aren't true, Peter. One is an assumption that space and time are independent of matter -- they're not. So if we have a concentration of energy without much matter, we have no ability to define 'where' and 'before'. Thus, I cannot make sense of your question. What we have is a lot of independent evidence that the space of our universe was highly compressed, that there was a lot of energy, and that matter appeared in quantity following an expansion of space and a consequent cooling of energy. The big bang is not an account of the creation of everything, but of the inception of what we now have. Physicists sometimes like to say that if you ask what was 'before' the big bang, you're asking what's north of the North Pole: just as the North pole defines North, the big bang defines the inception of the spacetime we have.

Who old are ya'?
Old enough not to care how someone copes with a straight answer. :)
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:22:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 3:53:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2016 2:57:02 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/15/2016 12:02:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:58:58 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.

ME: I really don't want to hi-jack my own post, but you have said something that I find interesting, in regards to 'nothing'.

You are saying that thee was always something that was sufficient to create, by randomness, the big bang, if that is the way you think that the cosmos began.

No, I haven't said that either, Peter. As an empiricist I identify subjects by observed behaviour: the behaviour defines the subject. If you want to talk about a dog, you must define how it looks and behaves, and then I know what you mean.

So if there's no behaviour to observe, or the observations are murky, there's no definition of subject, and any attempt to talk about an undefined subject is by definition, incoherent.

Therefore the questions of 'nothing from nothing' or 'something from nothing' are meaningless to me. Nobody can tell me how to observe nothing. We only observe somethings, so that's what I talk about.

What was before the big bang and how long was it there.
There are assumptions in your question that aren't true, Peter. One is an assumption that space and time are independent of matter -- they're not. So if we have a concentration of energy without much matter, we have no ability to define 'where' and 'before'. Thus, I cannot make sense of your question. What we have is a lot of independent evidence that the space of our universe was highly compressed, that there was a lot of energy, and that matter appeared in quantity following an expansion of space and a consequent cooling of energy. The big bang is not an account of the creation of everything, but of the inception of what we now have. Physicists sometimes like to say that if you ask what was 'before' the big bang, you're asking what's north of the North Pole: just as the North pole defines North, the big bang defines the inception of the spacetime we have.

Who old are ya'?
Old enough not to care how someone copes with a straight answer. :)

ME: Hokay, let's try this one. If you keep tossing the words in the air, they might come down with an answer of sorts, So, for clarity sake...What was before the "big Bang", and please don't say it is only a figurative expression for the beginning of everything.

Was there anything before the cosmos was started to be formed, and if yes, where did that anything come from and was the the beginning of everything or not?

Just answer yes or no: Was there ever a time when there was absolutely nothing?

Was the matter or material for the formation of the cosmos and all its attributes available for everything we have now or have had in existence?

Was all the material and energy just hanging around waiting for the chance happening of a "Big Bang"?

Did this random event happen quickly, as one would expect from an energy burst, which you are supposing?

Will you dodge the questions by saying you do not understand what I am asking?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:49:51 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 6:22:40 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/15/2016 3:53:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
So, for clarity sake...What was before the "big Bang"
That question isn't meaningful
Was there anything before the cosmos was started to be formed
Yes, our cosmos is defined as observable matter and energy in their presently-changing configurations, and before that there was less space and the matter was energy

Just answer yes or no: Was there ever a time when there was absolutely nothing?
I don't know what absolutely nothing is, so your question isn't meaningful to me.

Was the matter or material for the formation of the cosmos and all its attributes available for everything we have now or have had in existence?
Matter is an entropic form of energy. Before the energy of our cosmos condensed into matter, it is believed to have been energy.

Was all the material and energy just hanging around waiting for the chance happening of a "Big Bang"?
There are several plausible conjectured mechanisms by which an incident like the big bang might be triggered. One is that it could be triggered from within a black hole of another universe -- and might, for example, one day be triggered in ours; a second is that it could be triggered very infrequently in what might be called 'meta' time; a third is that it could be frequent, but only one is visible to us. Each has some theoretical support, but isn't yet falsifiable by observable evidence, so they're only ideas.

Did this random event happen quickly, as one would expect from an energy burst, which you are supposing?
I have said nothing about random, and the early part is thought to have been very, very quick indeed -- less than 1/(10^43) seconds. But that didn't produce anything permanently solid, just rapid expansion of space and the beginning of the forces we're now aware of. Protons are thought to have formed in the first microsecond of this account, but it is predicted to have taken some 379,000 years more to be cool enough for atoms to form, and then gravity began to bring atoms together and eventually produce stars. The universe is some 13.82 billion years old, and the light produced while atoms were forming -- in the first 379,000 years of the cosmos -- can still be seen, and is the oldest visible light in the universe.

Will you dodge the questions by saying you do not understand what I am asking?
Just the ones I don't understand, which relate (as I've already explained) to talking about time before time can be defined by any of the things we can today observe.
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 8:53:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 7:54:53 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/14/2016 3:44:41 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/14/2016 12:01:19 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/13/2016 1:06:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
IMO the most profound statement affecting all things is "Nothing does not exist"

If nothing does not exist then it must be replaced by something, otherwise you will have nothing, which does not exist.

If nothing does not exist, then you cannot determine what "Is next to nothing".

Can you accept there was once nothing?

When? Time must have existed in order for your question to be coherent.

ME: Nothing dictates the actions of nothing. Is nothing coherent?

ME: Try answering the question. When?

ME: Maybe there is hope for nothing yet.......Where there is nothing, nothing exists, or can exist.

One can prove nothing, or is nothing provable. If nothing was provable, where is the proof?

Nothing I say has anything to do with anything, not religion or science it is pure profundity, if nothing else.

However, having said that , let me say this...I appears that I am not the only deeply profound one here. Profound being used in place of slightly insane.

ME: Still avoiding the question. When?
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 8:53:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:58:58 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.

ME: I really don't want to hi-jack my own post, but you have said something that I find interesting, in regards to 'nothing'.

You are saying that thee was always something that was sufficient to create, by randomness, the big bang, if that is the way you think that the cosmos began.

If that is the case how did that something arrive? How did it carry all the DNA or codes of everything that was ever in existence?


But the most perplexing and (we've been told by Professor Lawrence Krauss for one) insane question is: "Where is all this IN? And is supposedly "expanding IN"??

Are you not saying that the creation theory is not plausible because of the thought that an almighty spirit being was responsible for the ordered creation and placing of everything in a correct place for human and animal, and every other thing either animate or inanimate life to exist? Of course, this is exactly what you now propose, but it all happened by chance, from just the right composition of elements needed.


I believe they say it is because "nothing" fluctuates between something and nothing., this quantum fluctuation allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles that supposedly creates our complex mathematically accurate reality/universe summed up in E=MC2 (That's mass traveling 186,282 times the speed of light for the laymen)

It's very easy to understand, and even if you don't, to accept this if you are religious.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 9:41:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 3:53:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2016 2:57:02 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/15/2016 12:02:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:58:58 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.

ME: I really don't want to hi-jack my own post, but you have said something that I find interesting, in regards to 'nothing'.

You are saying that thee was always something that was sufficient to create, by randomness, the big bang, if that is the way you think that the cosmos began.

No, I haven't said that either, Peter. As an empiricist I identify subjects by observed behaviour: the behaviour defines the subject. If you want to talk about a dog, you must define how it looks and behaves, and then I know what you mean.

So if there's no behaviour to observe, or the observations are murky, there's no definition of subject, and any attempt to talk about an undefined subject is by definition, incoherent.

Therefore the questions of 'nothing from nothing' or 'something from nothing' are meaningless to me. Nobody can tell me how to observe nothing. We only observe somethings, so that's what I talk about.

What was before the big bang and how long was it there.
There are assumptions in your question that aren't true, Peter. One is an assumption that space and time are independent of matter -- they're not. So if we have a concentration of energy without much matter, we have no ability to define 'where' and 'before'. Thus, I cannot make sense of your question. What we have is a lot of independent evidence that the space of our universe was highly compressed, that there was a lot of energy, and that matter appeared in quantity following an expansion of space :

The BB theory is all based on the assumption that the universe is expanding. But HOW did they come up with the universe expanding?? Oh, by observing distant stars/galaxies moving away from each other? .. LOL.

OK, let's tie two tennis balls to some strings and pin the strings on to the ceiling. Now line up the two tennis balls in your sight. Good.

Now slowly, .. you know, slow like our little solar system is moving around, twirling in our Milky way galaxy, move to the side.

Q. are the two tennis balls moving away from each other, is our room expanding, ..or it's just you moving to the side that gives the illusion the tennis balls are expanding the room?? LOL

.. and a consequent cooling of energy. :

OK, have scientists ever taken a gazillion degrees hot little ball of "we don't know what" and put it in "nothing"?
If so, did it expand, or did it continue to compress itself?
Did it continue to compress itself till it BB'ed?
If it BB'ed, and expanded real fast like, did it cool?
Why did it cool? Is it because the "nothing" outside this expanding ball-of-fire is very cold?
Or is it because things that expand naturally get colder?
Could we fill a balloon with hot air till it freezes? (if expansion cools, this should happen, no?)

The big bang is not an account of the creation of everything, but of the inception of what we now have. Physicists sometimes like to say that if you ask what was 'before' the big bang, you're asking what's north of the North Pole: just as the North pole defines North, the big bang defines the inception of the spacetime we have.


The North Pole does NOT define "North", .. the word "North" defines north, and we can take our compass to other planets.

Just like the question: "what was 'before' the big bang" is not exclusive to the Big Bang story. I mean what, we are not allowed to ask what was before, or what it is expanding into, .. or mention the word "absolute nothing" because your BB-Evolutionists will get offended and call us stupid?

Who old are ya'?
Old enough not to care how someone copes with a straight answer. :) :

There, you gave your straight answer, and we should deal with it right? LOL, .. hey wait, are you Professor Lawrence Krauss by any chance? Because I just love how he had this gentleman thrown out of the Auditorium for asking a "straight question"!?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 10:31:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:49:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:22:40 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/15/2016 3:53:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
So, for clarity sake...What was before the "big Bang"
That question isn't meaningful
Was there anything before the cosmos was started to be formed
Yes, our cosmos is defined as observable matter and energy in their presently-changing configurations, and before that there was less space and the matter was energy

Just answer yes or no: Was there ever a time when there was absolutely nothing?
I don't know what absolutely nothing is, so your question isn't meaningful to me.

Was the matter or material for the formation of the cosmos and all its attributes available for everything we have now or have had in existence?
Matter is an entropic form of energy. Before the energy of our cosmos condensed into matter, it is believed to have been energy.


Condensed or not, isn't it still "energy"? Is "condensed energy" different than uncondensed energy?

Was all the material and energy just hanging around waiting for the chance happening of a "Big Bang"?
There are several plausible conjectured mechanisms by which an incident like the big bang might be triggered. One is that it could be triggered from within a black hole of another universe -- and might, for example, one day be triggered in ours :

How many "another universes" have there been observed? Has 666CERN send any probes into a black hole and detect it coming out in another universe? I can make up all kinds of cool sci-fi stories too, does that count? Or you have to have a degree in B.S. to make such assumptions? Just asking?

a second is that it could be triggered very infrequently in what might be called 'meta' time; :

How many 'meta' times have there been observed triggering a Big-Bang? Or just a "poof", .. or even a "ping"?

a third is that it could be frequent, but only one is visible to us. Each has some theoretical support, but isn't yet falsifiable by observable evidence, so they're only ideas.


Where are these "ideas" in? There you will find the universe.
are these ideas IN the brain? See what I mean? Infinite my friends, the universe is IN Infinite.
Infinite is also Eternal, and obviously He is conscious of Himself. Once you accept these FACTS by observing the relation between your mind and this physical world including your brain, all these paradoxes just vanish, and you get this deep sigh of understanding. Things start to make sense.

Did this random event happen quickly, as one would expect from an energy burst, which you are supposing? : :

I have said nothing about random, and the early part is thought to have been very, very quick indeed -- less than 1/(10^43) seconds. But that didn't produce anything permanently solid, just rapid expansion of space and the beginning of the forces we're now aware of. Protons are thought to have formed in the first microsecond of this account, but it is predicted to have taken some 379,000 years more to be cool enough for atoms to form, and then gravity began to bring atoms together and eventually produce stars. The universe is some 13.82 billion years old, and the light produced while atoms were forming -- in the first 379,000 years of the cosmos -- can still be seen, and is the oldest visible light in the universe.


The oldest visible light mixed in with the youngest, .. who decides which is which? How many experiments where they observed light getting old, .. even by a millionth of a second?? Or "old light" create new light?

Evidence, scientific theories should be built on evidence, at least a few observed and documented small-Bangs, or "tings", then "clangs", then "booms" and then a Big-Bang. But no, it was a Big-Bang, and by the Rosary of father Lemaitre, by the power of Mary that is what it will stay, .. a "Big-Bang"! .. so there!

Will you dodge the questions by saying you do not understand what I am asking?
Just the ones I don't understand, which relate (as I've already explained) to talking about time before time can be defined by any of the things we can today observe. :

Which means what?
It means by ALL observation that "time" always had to exist, and space too. A quantum speck of "whatever" getting denser and hotter in a point in space took time to get denser and hotter, no?

So now the question is, what do we call the "time" when the quantum-speck was getting denser and hotter, and the "space" this was happening in, since this supposedly happened before our time and space as we know it today, in this universe!?

I know, like Disney we can call it "Time before time, in a Space before space"!? And, .. and call it "physics"! But this will lead to Infinite regress.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 10:36:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 9:41:11 PM, Evidence wrote:
The BB theory is all based on the assumption that the universe is expanding.
No; it's built on the observation that it is. The evidence for that when it came, was very surprising -- virtually nobody expected it. Prior to the observation of an expanding universe, the popular model almost universally accepted, was of a steady state, possibly eternal universe.

As you may guess, the evidence had to be compelling to overturn that orthodoxy. But since you don't know what the evidence is, and only guessed it... unfortunately your guess was incorrect, as are your conclusions. You are now free to either research it meticulously or ask a question of a member who has. Forming rigid opinions from unresearched guesses is poor critical thought, and it is unethical to claim such guesses as knowledge.

OK, have scientists ever taken a gazillion degrees hot little ball of "we don't know what" and put it in "nothing"?
Ignoring the vacuous reference to 'nothing', there are various ways of observing the very hot, the most effective of which has been to concentrate a great deal of energy on a very small amount of matter. The hottest laboratory temperature produced that I know of is two billion degrees Kelvin, reported from the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories in 2006. That's about 100 times hotter than the hottest observed nuclear explosion, or the highest modeled core temperature of our sun.

Why did it cool? Is it because the "nothing" outside this expanding ball-of-fire is very cold?
Because temperature is pretty much defined as energy intensity, and depends on the volume of space a fixed amount of energy occupies. So a fixed amount of energy in expanding space means a cooling temperature.

Or is it because things that expand naturally get colder?
Yes, precisely.

Could we fill a balloon with hot air till it freezes? (if expansion cools, this should happen, no?)
If you put a balloon with a fixed quantity of hot air at a certain temperature into space, the balloon will expand due to differential pressure. Even if no heat is lost through the skin of the balloon, the gas cools as it expands. Depending on how the gas phase works, some gas may freeze to the sides of the balloon -- for example, that can happen with any water vapour in the balloon's air. This has been tested many times, including in low-pressure laboratories as early as the 1950s, back when people wanted to test what would happen to jets at high altitude. Note that many comets and some planets have surfaces of frozen methane (normally a gas on earth) for just this reason.

The big bang is not an account of the creation of everything, but of the inception of what we now have. Physicists sometimes like to say that if you ask what was 'before' the big bang, you're asking what's north of the North Pole: just as the North pole defines North, the big bang defines the inception of the spacetime we have.
The North Pole does NOT define "North", .. the word "North" defines north, and we can take our compass to other planets.
The rotation of the Earth's iron core gives us our measure of magnetic north, though it shifts over time and can sometimes even flip. In places where there is no rotating iron core, that measure doesn't exist. Instead, the axis of rotation (if any) offers another measure, but that cannot be detected with a compass.

I mean what, we are not allowed to ask what was before, or what it is expanding into, .. or mention the word "absolute nothing" because your BB-Evolutionists will get offended and call us stupid?
It's not stupid, Ev, so much as ignorant. The ignorance arises from not knowing how knowledge works in science, and thinking it works like philosophy.

It only becomes stupid if, once ignorance is pointed out, one continues to rely on it as knowledge.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 10:41:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 10:36:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
OK, have scientists ever taken a gazillion degrees hot little ball of "we don't know what" and put it in "nothing"?
Ignoring the vacuous reference to 'nothing', there are various ways of observing the very hot, the most effective of which has been to concentrate a great deal of energy on a very small amount of matter. The hottest laboratory temperature produced that I know of is two billion degrees Kelvin, reported from the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories in 2006. That's about 100 times hotter than the hottest observed nuclear explosion, or the highest modeled core temperature of our sun.

Correction:

The hottest temperature created by humans is approximately four trillion Kelvin; or 7.2 trillion degrees Fahrenheit within the large Hadron Collider.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

You were incorrect by 3 orders of magnitude.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 10:52:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 10:31:40 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:49:51 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Matter is an entropic form of energy. Before the energy of our cosmos condensed into matter, it is believed to have been energy.
Is "condensed energy" different than uncondensed energy?
Yes. It is thought that enormous concentrations of heat may be associated with some phenomena not seen at other times, and that these phenomena have left traces in the universe we can observe today. Reproducing some of those phenomena remains an area of interest.

There are several plausible conjectured mechanisms by which an incident like the big bang might be triggered. One is that it could be triggered from within a black hole of another universe -- and might, for example, one day be triggered in ours :
How many "another universes" have there been observed?
None; that's why it's only a conjecture. The way a conjecture becomes an hypothesis is to make a specific, observable prediction; the way an hypothesis becomes an experiment is by engineering a way to test it.

I can make up all kinds of cool sci-fi stories too, does that count?
It depends on how you construct them. Not every conjecture is scientific. What distinguishes scientific conjectures from fantastical philosophies are their accountability to the full spectrum of empirical methods, best practice predictive models, their submission to independent expert scrutiny, and their pursuit of verification via empirical falsification.

a second is that it could be triggered very infrequently in what might be called 'meta' time; :
How many 'meta' times have there been observed triggering a Big-Bang?
None; that's why it's declared only a conjecture.

a third is that it could be frequent, but only one is visible to us. Each has some theoretical support, but isn't yet falsifiable by observable evidence, so they're only ideas.
are these ideas IN the brain?
Yes, they're a result of thought. However, once they become empirically verified, they also become reliably predictive, and we can conclude that some part of the idea also resides outside our thought.

Infinite is also Eternal, and obviously He is conscious of Himself.
I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm convinced that you don't either.

The oldest visible light mixed in with the youngest, .. who decides which is which?
Not whom, but what. The what relates to how far the light has been traveling to reach us, which in turn links to how scientists know the universe is expanding. For that, as I mentioned in an earlier post, you'd need to either do some research, or admit ignorance and ask an open question.

Evidence, scientific theories should be built on evidence, at least a few observed and documented small-Bangs, or "tings", then "clangs", then "booms" and then a Big-Bang.
It's popular among antiscience people (usually the doctrinaire religious) to insist that science can only reason validly and accurately from direct evidence.

It's also false. To understand why would require you to either research or admit ignorance and ask an open question.

Will you dodge the questions by saying you do not understand what I am asking?
Just the ones I don't understand, which relate (as I've already explained) to talking about time before time can be defined by any of the things we can today observe. :
Which means what?
It means by ALL observation that "time" always had to exist, and space too.
Sorry, but a member who cannot explain how science recognises knowledge cannot comment competently on scientific models or inferences. You need to read and know more, Ev, before your comments are valid.

As I have mentioned, that would involve either researching more diligently, or admitting ignorance and asking open questions.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 10:54:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 10:41:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/18/2016 10:36:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
OK, have scientists ever taken a gazillion degrees hot little ball of "we don't know what" and put it in "nothing"?
Ignoring the vacuous reference to 'nothing', there are various ways of observing the very hot, the most effective of which has been to concentrate a great deal of energy on a very small amount of matter. The hottest laboratory temperature produced that I know of is two billion degrees Kelvin, reported from the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories in 2006. That's about 100 times hotter than the hottest observed nuclear explosion, or the highest modeled core temperature of our sun.

Correction:

The hottest temperature created by humans is approximately four trillion Kelvin; or 7.2 trillion degrees Fahrenheit within the large Hadron Collider.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

You were incorrect by 3 orders of magnitude.

Thank you for the update, Ram. Although my statement was true (it was the hottest temp I knew of), I confess to only a cursory search, and am delighted to be humiliated in this most exciting way. :)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 10:54:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 10:54:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/18/2016 10:41:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/18/2016 10:36:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
OK, have scientists ever taken a gazillion degrees hot little ball of "we don't know what" and put it in "nothing"?
Ignoring the vacuous reference to 'nothing', there are various ways of observing the very hot, the most effective of which has been to concentrate a great deal of energy on a very small amount of matter. The hottest laboratory temperature produced that I know of is two billion degrees Kelvin, reported from the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories in 2006. That's about 100 times hotter than the hottest observed nuclear explosion, or the highest modeled core temperature of our sun.

Correction:

The hottest temperature created by humans is approximately four trillion Kelvin; or 7.2 trillion degrees Fahrenheit within the large Hadron Collider.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

You were incorrect by 3 orders of magnitude.

Thank you for the update, Ram. Although my statement was true (it was the hottest temp I knew of), I confess to only a cursory search, and am delighted to be humiliated in this most exciting way. :)

coughdilligentresearchcough
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 11:01:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 10:54:50 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/18/2016 10:54:17 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/18/2016 10:41:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/18/2016 10:36:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
OK, have scientists ever taken a gazillion degrees hot little ball of "we don't know what" and put it in "nothing"?
Ignoring the vacuous reference to 'nothing', there are various ways of observing the very hot, the most effective of which has been to concentrate a great deal of energy on a very small amount of matter. The hottest laboratory temperature produced that I know of is two billion degrees Kelvin, reported from the Z machine at Sandia National Laboratories in 2006. That's about 100 times hotter than the hottest observed nuclear explosion, or the highest modeled core temperature of our sun.

Correction:

The hottest temperature created by humans is approximately four trillion Kelvin; or 7.2 trillion degrees Fahrenheit within the large Hadron Collider.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

You were incorrect by 3 orders of magnitude.

Thank you for the update, Ram. Although my statement was true (it was the hottest temp I knew of), I confess to only a cursory search, and am delighted to be humiliated in this most exciting way. :)

coughdilligentresearchcough

The example I cited was sufficient to make the point that we can produce temperatures well above those observed in our environment, and the degree to which we can do that is not material to the conversation, unless the conversation turns to the specific temperatures conjectured in the earliest theorised moments of the Big Bang -- at which point, what happens at trillions of degrees certainly does count.

So, I claim sufficient diligence for the purposes of conversation, as well as sufficient transparency and accountability with respect to currency and accuracy of the information. Had the conversation required more, I'd have done more -- which is not to suggest that injecting more isn't welcome and valuable. :D
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 3:40:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 9:41:11 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 7/15/2016 3:53:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2016 2:57:02 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/15/2016 12:02:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:58:58 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/14/2016 3:38:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/13/2016 3:29:25 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Can you accept there was once nothing?

I'm not sure what that statement means, Peter. I don't say such things; I don't know any scientist who does. The only people I hear saying such things seem to all be religious people trying to refute a scientific claim they purport to quote, yet never cite.

I just wish they'd accurately cite the claim they were trying to refute.

ME: I really don't want to hi-jack my own post, but you have said something that I find interesting, in regards to 'nothing'.

You are saying that thee was always something that was sufficient to create, by randomness, the big bang, if that is the way you think that the cosmos began.

No, I haven't said that either, Peter. As an empiricist I identify subjects by observed behaviour: the behaviour defines the subject. If you want to talk about a dog, you must define how it looks and behaves, and then I know what you mean.

So if there's no behaviour to observe, or the observations are murky, there's no definition of subject, and any attempt to talk about an undefined subject is by definition, incoherent.

Therefore the questions of 'nothing from nothing' or 'something from nothing' are meaningless to me. Nobody can tell me how to observe nothing. We only observe somethings, so that's what I talk about.

What was before the big bang and how long was it there.
There are assumptions in your question that aren't true, Peter. One is an assumption that space and time are independent of matter -- they're not. So if we have a concentration of energy without much matter, we have no ability to define 'where' and 'before'. Thus, I cannot make sense of your question. What we have is a lot of independent evidence that the space of our universe was highly compressed, that there was a lot of energy, and that matter appeared in quantity following an expansion of space :

The BB theory is all based on the assumption that the universe is expanding. But HOW did they come up with the universe expanding?? Oh, by observing distant stars/galaxies moving away from each other? .. LOL.

OK, let's tie two tennis balls to some strings and pin the strings on to the ceiling. Now line up the two tennis balls in your sight. Good.

Now slowly, .. you know, slow like our little solar system is moving around, twirling in our Milky way galaxy, move to the side.

Q. are the two tennis balls moving away from each other, is our room expanding, ..or it's just you moving to the side that gives the illusion the tennis balls are expanding the room?? LOL

.. and a consequent cooling of energy. :

OK, have scientists ever taken a gazillion degrees hot little ball of "we don't know what" and put it in "nothing"?
If so, did it expand, or did it continue to compress itself?
Did it continue to compress itself till it BB'ed?
If it BB'ed, and expanded real fast like, did it cool?
Why did it cool? Is it because the "nothing" outside this expanding ball-of-fire is very cold?
Or is it because things that expand naturally get colder?
Could we fill a balloon with hot air till it freezes? (if expansion cools, this should happen, no?)

The big bang is not an account of the creation of everything, but of the inception of what we now have. Physicists sometimes like to say that if you ask what was 'before' the big bang, you're asking what's north of the North Pole: just as the North pole defines North, the big bang defines the inception of the spacetime we have.


The North Pole does NOT define "North", .. the word "North" defines north, and we can take our compass to other planets.

Just like the question: "what was 'before' the big bang" is not exclusive to the Big Bang story. I mean what, we are not allowed to ask what was before, or what it is expanding into, .. or mention the word "absolute nothing" because your BB-Evolutionists will get offended and call us stupid?

Who old are ya'?
Old enough not to care how someone copes with a straight answer. :) :

There, you gave your straight answer, and we should deal with it right? LOL, .. hey wait, are you Professor Lawrence Krauss by any chance? Because I just love how he had this gentleman thrown out of the Auditorium for asking a "straight question"!?

ME: So I am not the only one that is a victim or the nothing answer?

I might put this to the Avoider: I found a pair of snowflakes yesterday that were identical in every manner. By the time I got them to a scientist they had melted......True of false.