On 20-7-2010 21:05, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 20-7-2010 12:52, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> That we have currently no theory that describes what happen at 
>>>> ridiculous energy levels does in no way imply that there is no 
>>>> description possible.
>>>   But since you can't base it on any physical model, it would simply be a
>>> conjecture, nothing more.
> 
>> If you think that the concept that space and time are connected and you 
>> can not have one without the other is a conjecture, be my guest.
> 
>   You talk as if I have said something like "yeah, I don't have any problem
> accepting that space got created in the Big Bang, but I don't swallow that
> time was too".
> 
>   Why are you talking about space here?

I am talking about both time and space. You know, that 4 dimensional thing.

> I'm not. I'm saying that *nothing*
> can be said about *anything* when we go sufficiently back.

Sure, just as some strange things happen when temperature goes to very 
close to 0 Kelvin. That in no way gives room for any claim that 
temperatures below 0 Kelvin are possible. For a physicist temperatures 
below 0K and time before the Big Bang are both completely nonsensical 
and for exactly the same reason. Of course I understand it if a 
non-physicist extrapolates from his own lifelong experience that time is 
a linear phenomenon and that you should be able to go infinitely 
backwards. Trust me on this one: that interpretation is incompatible 
with current physics. Sure, there might be some new insight next year or 
next century that invalidates that view, but your question was about Big 
Bang theory, that is nowadays physics and my answer is too.

>   You claim that time and space was created at the moment of the Big Bang.
> I asked which physical model you are basing that claim on. If you are not
> basing it on any known physical model, it's just a conjecture.

Sigh, again: Big Bang theory says that the universe started with the big 
Bang, so time did. End of story.

Sorry if this answer annoys you because it sounds pedantic, but I seem 
not to be able to get the message across. I won't answer next time when 
you pose the exact same faulty concept again, because I know I will be 
even more unpleasant.

Post a reply to this message