- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,703
- 2,335
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Huh? You have provided zero evidence for these unfounded claims:No, I said most of the evidence points in the direction of those being true and they are the majority view, but I never said I knew for certain. I just agree with the majority view and most of the evidence.
You claimed that there can be no spacetime other than that which is part of the Big Bang. You do not know that.
You claimed that there can be no physical matter or actions other than that which is part of the Big Bang. You do not know that.
You claimed that there can be no physical matter or actions other than that which is part of the Big Bang. You do not know that.
Your evidence for this: Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
How can you say zero is equivalent to the most evidence?
And no, this absolutely is not the majority view.
Huh? Saying you don't know it for certain does not alleviate the problem that you are making wild guesses with no evidence. You simply have no evidence for what happened before Planck time.Neither me nor them claimed to know this for certain, they only believe that presently that is where the evidence points.
Perhaps he said this about the universe created by the Big Bang. But for that which is before Planck Time, he has no possible way of knowing that. Our knowledge of physics breaks down at that point.No, even Hawking himself admitted it in his book. Hawking, Brief History, pages, 138–39, 164–65. And he admitted in the book that the universe is in fact constrained by real time.
And no, "no possible way of knowing that" is not the same as "Ed1wolf is probably right."
Flapdoodle.Straw man see above.
Once again the breakdown of physics at Planck time has bugged physicists for years. Nobody has resolved it. If you think they have resolved it, but are only pretending they haven't resolved it because the resolution leads to God, then please tell us how it was resolved.
For instance:
Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only an all-encompassing theory of quantum gravity which unifies these two fundamental pillars of physics could provide an insight into how the universe began...For almost a century, the two major theories of physics have coexisted but have been irreconcilable:Physicists Take a New Approach to Unify Quantum Theory and Theory of Relativity (scitechdaily.com)
And no, "irreconcilable" does not mean "it probably happened the way Ed1wolf says it happened". Irreconcilable means it cannot be understood with our current understanding of physics.
...if one ignores quantum mechanics. You forgot that part.The space-time theorems, in the framework of classical general relativity prove that if the universe contains mass and if the equations of general relativity reliably describe the universe's dynamics then its space and time dimensions must have had a beginning that coincides with the universe's origin.
Upvote
0