Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

the begining or just a hoax

infinitum
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 7:53:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
if big bang was begining of time itself then anything happening before big bang should not affect the future since it doesnt show in our time line so the terms 'creation' and 'evolution' of universe at big bang dont hold any proof (because they happened before big bang and thus are unaccounted or not present) so we cannot say surely if universe was created or evolved from something primitive, but on the other had seeing universe and time as they existed forever and will exist forever is a safe assumption. maybe this space-time creation is a hypothetical method to understand singularity, black holes and other concepts. what are your views on it ?
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 10:57:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 7:53:44 PM, infinitum wrote:
if big bang was begining of time itself then anything happening before big bang should not affect the future since it doesnt show in our time line so the terms 'creation' and 'evolution' of universe at big bang dont hold any proof (because they happened before big bang and thus are unaccounted or not present) so we cannot say surely if universe was created or evolved from something primitive, but on the other had seeing universe and time as they existed forever and will exist forever is a safe assumption. maybe this space-time creation is a hypothetical method to understand singularity, black holes and other concepts. what are your views on it ?

What is meant by "something primitive" and "evolve"?

Harry.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 11:07:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 7:53:44 PM, infinitum wrote:

if big bang was begining of time itself then anything happening before big bang ...

If you accept that space-time are products of the BB then it is incoherent to talk about "before" the BB.

... should not affect the future since it doesnt show in our time line so the terms 'creation' and 'evolution' of universe at big bang dont hold any proof (because they happened before big bang and thus are unaccounted or not present) ...

No cosmologist talks about "creation". As to evolution of the universe from the BB state to what we see today, what is the problem exactly?

... so we cannot say surely if universe was created or evolved from something primitive, ...

True. Our physics breaks down at the instant of the BB and we currently have no way to investigate beyond it.

... but on the other had seeing universe and time as they existed forever and will exist forever is a safe assumption.

Then how do you explain the BB? You yourself accepted that space and time arose from the BB. Now you are discarding that premise for no obvious reason. A universe which exists forever in something like its present state is impossible for many reasons which I can elaborate on if you wish.

maybe this space-time creation is a hypothetical method to understand singularity, black holes and other concepts.

Um, what?

what are your views on it ?
infinitum
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 11:07:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 10:57:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 9/24/2016 7:53:44 PM, infinitum wrote:
if big bang was begining of time itself then anything happening before big bang should not affect the future since it doesnt show in our time line so the terms 'creation' and 'evolution' of universe at big bang dont hold any proof (because they happened before big bang and thus are unaccounted or not present) so we cannot say surely if universe was created or evolved from something primitive, but on the other had seeing universe and time as they existed forever and will exist forever is a safe assumption. maybe this space-time creation is a hypothetical method to understand singularity, black holes and other concepts. what are your views on it ?

What is meant by "something primitive" and "evolve"?

Harry.

here something primitive means that if evolution took place then there should be an ancestor (example for humans, our ancestors are primates) and to evolve means having a successor.
infinitum
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 11:14:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 11:07:39 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/24/2016 7:53:44 PM, infinitum wrote:

if big bang was begining of time itself then anything happening before big bang ...

If you accept that space-time are products of the BB then it is incoherent to talk about "before" the BB.

... should not affect the future since it doesnt show in our time line so the terms 'creation' and 'evolution' of universe at big bang dont hold any proof (because they happened before big bang and thus are unaccounted or not present) ...

No cosmologist talks about "creation". As to evolution of the universe from the BB state to what we see today, what is the problem exactly?

... so we cannot say surely if universe was created or evolved from something primitive, ...

True. Our physics breaks down at the instant of the BB and we currently have no way to investigate beyond it.

... but on the other had seeing universe and time as they existed forever and will exist forever is a safe assumption.

Then how do you explain the BB? You yourself accepted that space and time arose from the BB. Now you are discarding that premise for no obvious reason. A universe which exists forever in something like its present state is impossible for many reasons which I can elaborate on if you wish.

maybe this space-time creation is a hypothetical method to understand singularity, black holes and other concepts.

Um, what?

what are your views on it ?

thank you, but i already found the answers i was looking for.if you want to know more you can visit my debate 'universe,time ever existent'
Annnaxim
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 11:41:54 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 11:07:57 PM, infinitum wrote:
here something primitive means that if evolution took place then there should be an ancestor (example for humans, our ancestors are primates) and to evolve means having a successor.
Why should there be an ancestor.
Lot's of things happen without causality. Just look t quantum mechanics. It is full of non-causal stuff, like the decay of an atom. Radioactive decay is statistical. So could the BB have occurred as a result of a statistical fluctuation. There is no need for a "creator" or anything else, that caused the BB to happen --
It just happened and "42" is just as likely as anything else, to be the reason.

As Stephen Hawking once said in so many words, "It is more likely that there is something, rather than nothing".
keithprosser
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2016 2:12:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
My view is that the bb happened but it is inexplicable given our current state of knowledge. Does anyone think our present state of knowledge is all that will be or can be known? Do we know everything already?
I am sure no scientist thinks so, but critics of science often ignore that we only know these fundamental problems exist because if how far science has come.
I don't know if in 10 years the problem of 'what happened before or to cause the bb' won't be an issue or if it will still be a hotly debated topic 2000 years on the future. It is the unknown nature of the future that makes it exciting to some, but perhaps a bit scary to some others.