There was no "before" before the Big Bang

[lesliedellow]

Again, you are confusing the symbols used to represent the concept with the actual concept.

No I am not. A vector in three space is DEFINED to be a tulle of three numbers.

Yes, I know what a Hilbert Space is. It's fairly integral to non-Euclidean geometry, and is utilized in a number of different applications in physics. Are you attempting to imply that it does not describe the physical world?

Hilbert Space has got nothing whatsoever to do with non Euclidean geometry.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

<Staff Edit> Nobody supposes that you have to take into account the gravitational field of every single star in the universe when using Newton's equations to calculate the Earth's orbit round the Sun. In fact you ignore all of them except one, and you get an approximation which is so close to being 100% accurate as to make no difference. The same kind of wholly sensible procedure is undertaken when doing calculations in General Relativity.

<Staff Edit>

<Staff Edit>One can not get the correct orbital patterns of the planets without taking into account the gravitational force for the entire system. You don't take into account the other stars or galaxies because it doesn't apply. It's not the gravitational force that is controlling the dynamics of galaxies. Proven by the fact you can ignore it completely.

But you go ahead and show me the orbit of any planet taking into account only the sun and it - let's see how well that works......

And your star claim flies out the window since the sun is one of those stars that refuse to orbit according to your gravitational computations <Staff Edit>.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No I am not. A vector in three space is DEFINED to be a tulle of three numbers.

And quit confusing numbers as reality.....

Their must first exist something to assign a vector to.

So what is a magnetic field composed of - since it is a vector field? Numbers?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

But this might be better to start with.

http://www.chem4kids.com/files/matter_states.html

 

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No I am not. A vector in three space is DEFINED to be a tulle of three numbers.

A vector is defined as being an element of a vector space. Vector spaces are defined as being sets over a particular field for which operators can be defined that support a particular group of axioms. Yes, this is typically borne out numerically, but this doesn't make them any less descriptive of physical properties.

Hilbert Space has got nothing whatsoever to do with non Euclidean geometry.

Well, that's simply untrue. Hilbert Spaces can be used to generalize Euclidean Spaces to any arbitrary number of dimensions. Hilbert's work on Euclidean spaces was extremely influential on the development of non-Euclidean geometry, in the early 20th Century. Non-Euclidean spaces of n-dimensions can be modeled by Hilbert Spaces of n+1-dimensions.

 

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The stars are plasma and hence do not obey those gravitational laws.

LOL, wut? Stars do not conform to gravitational theory? Since when?

Gravitational theory applies only to solids, liquids and gasses in clumps or condensed states.

No, it doesn't. In fact, modern gravitational theory applies to space-time, itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's what I find so amusing about atheist cosmology. It's unintelligent and yet claims itself superior to those who ascribe to intelligent design.

Something went bang! But there was no thing that created some thing to go bang. Bang just happened and came from nothing that as a consequence made everything.

Who said it came from nothing?

 

[lesliedellow]

A vector is defined as being an element of a vector space. Vector spaces are defined as being sets over a particular field for which operators can be defined that support a particular group of axioms. Yes, this is typically borne out numerically, but this doesn't make them any less descriptive of physical properties.

"Descriptive of physical properties"

Precisely. They are abstractions which can be used to model the physical world; they are not physical things themselves.

The Hilbert Spaces I have had to do with have always had an infinite number of dimensions, but I will concede that they could be finite dimensional.

Anyway, to get back to the original point, there is no reason why this four dimensional space-time universe might not be embedded in a space of five or more dimensions, and, if it is, there will certainly be space dimensions which are orthogonal to it.

 

[SteveB28]

I still don't understand how nothing turns into something. It makes zero sense. So something...er... nothing?!? the size of nothing exploding from nothing into something and formed LOTS of nothing beyond what we can imagine. At least when you add a Creator it would make more sense because He can create things from nothing (as He did). Though some say "Well who created Him then?" or "Where was He if nothing was around?". But thats thinking from a human view point. Just like from a human viewpoint we understand time. Especially when it comes to our bodies. We know we live and die. Time is a thing. But to some things time may not be anything. As in the case of God. To him 1,000 years is but a blink.

As for who created Him. He just has always existed. Again we are looking at from our human POV. Space, time, mass....it didn't exist until He brought it into being. Lets imagine you just woke up and you were a god. You could create everything. Would you ask who created you (assuming nothing existed at the time you woke up)? Of course not. But again, we can't even answer that question because it doesn't make sense with our human minds. We would wonder "How can you suddenly wake up? How did you come into being?". We don't understand anything really. As for where was He if nothing existed. Well currently we cannot see God (in a literal sense) right? So this would mean Hes not in our spectrum of what we can see. Maybe Hes in another dimension. Maybe Hes invisible to us. Maybe Hes invisible to everything. Maybe time and space aren't even a place He exists. For all we know the universe fits is a tiny ball sitting in the ball of HIs hand. Again from a human stand point it makes no sense because its beyond our understanding. Just like explaining quantum mechanics to a 3 year old is beyond their understanding. But we don't want to think of it like we are almost babies because it means there is something smarter then us, something that is beyond what we are. We don't like not having total control or knowing something else may matter more then ourselves.

Let's see - it's ridiculous that something could be made from nothing, but you believe that something was made from nothing?

What do they call that kind of logic please?

 

[lesliedellow]

Let's see - it's ridiculous that something could be made from nothing, but you believe that something was made from nothing?

What do they call that kind of logic please?

That creation ex nihilo is, and always has been, Christian doctrine, seems to escape the notice of creationists.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL, wut? Stars do not conform to gravitational theory? Since when?

Since they first did a calculation over 100 years ago and found the stars in the galaxy do not rotate according to the gravitational laws. That's when. That's why they are called flat rotation curves. it is only mainstream that needs Fairie Dust to explain why they refuse to obey the gravitational laws. First they tried singularities and infinite mass and still couldn't make it fit. Then they threw in dark matter and still couldn't make it work.

But as i said - it is only mainstream theories where they attempt to force fit the behavior of clumps of matter to individual particles. Judging by some of your posts you should be aware that single particles do not behave as clumps of particles - nor can the energy of single particles be deduced from those clumps. But they have done so anyways - and you let them then accept those Fairie Dst excuses for applying physics you know can not be applied to that plasma state of matter

Unlike mainstream there are models that work and that require no Fairie Dust - just the physics for single particles.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

No, it doesn't. In fact, modern gravitational theory applies to space-time, itself.

Which is composed of nothing, right? Are you know making the claim that space time bends itself??????? That it requires no physical matter creating a gravitational field which bends spacetime and then which the matter follows????? If gravitational theory applies to spacetime itself - then spacetime can bend itself without any help from matter or energy. But since we all understand it is composed of nothing - we can discard that notion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's see - it's ridiculous that something could be made from nothing, but you believe that something was made from nothing?

What do they call that kind of logic please?

Where did you ever get that idea? Even science requires that energy just always existed as it can be neither created nor destroyed.

And if I wanted to use a flawed theory - the Big bang would be on the top of my list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

"was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

You are just in denial of who created the Big Bang theory and feel the need to give credit to another person entirely.

Energy has always existed and will always exist - because it is energy - Mind - that has always existed and from which everything is from and to which everything will return.

As a matter of fact we wouldn't be here discussing this right now without that energy coursing through your brain.

 

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Anyway, to get back to the original point, there is no reason why this four dimensional space-time universe might not be embedded in a space of five or more dimensions, and, if it is, there will certainly be space dimensions which are orthogonal to it.

It seems we're pretty much on the same page, now, and largely in agreement. So, I certainly agree that it is entirely possible that there exist other dimensions orthogonal to the four common to human experience. I simply noted that, should such dimensions exist, they would be considered a part of material reality by philosophers and theologians.

That creation ex nihilo is, and always has been, Christian doctrine, seems to escape the notice of creationists.

It always perplexes me when theologians proclaim "ex nihilo nihil fit," therefore "creatio ex nihilo."

<Staff Edit>

 

[Aman777]

hmm, if they are below us, why can't we judge them?

We shall judge the angels as 1 Cor 6:3 states. Humans are destined to have dominion or rule over "EVERY" living creature. Gen 1:8 This happens at the end of the present 6th Day AFTER Jesus returns to our Earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

<Staff Edit>
Shall we discuss again your refusal to accept what all of science understands, that the behavior or energy of clumps of matter can not be used to determine the behavior or energy of single particles??? <Staff Edit>

 

[Justatruthseeker]

let me know when you all decide to accept the science as we understand it to be.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/

""We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

You all can't even get your Fairie Dust to fit moon dust - let alone a universe 99% plasma. You are all deluding yourself, blinded by that Fairie Dust to the point where you must ignore the science to continue to preach Fairie Dust. Such a sad state science has fallen into.

 

[Aman777]

<Staff Edit>

Traditional religious stories have been theorized for thousands of years and many, such as matter from nothing is not true Scripturally, as the following shows:

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

It took Einstein, some 2k years after the above was written, to learn that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. Since God lives in a world of total energy and knows HOW to change energy into matter, it was simple for Him to change the matter created before the first day Gen 1:1-2 into energy, which cooled and became our Universe.

God's first two verses display an Intelligence which is above today's Science. They are also empirical (testable) evidence of the Literal God. Amen?

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[HitchSlap]

I will repeat what I said before. Why, if the question is meaningless, do we have atheist scientists indulging in unverifiable speculations, such as the big bang being the result of two branes colliding? Answer: Because they want an explanation which doesn't involve God, no matter how far outside the proper remit of science that takes them.

Source?

 

[lesliedellow]

Source?

They are not exactly difficult to find:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html