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

  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.

> >> Or in other words, we don't know what happened, 
> >> only that something happened at those early times just after the big 
> >> bang. As such it has no implications on what happened before t=0.
> > 
> >   If we don't know what happened, then we can't say "this happened" (ie.
> > "time was created at the moment of the Big Bang"). That would be a
> > contradiction.

> You refer to not having a model for what happened *after* the big bang 
> whereas I am referring to 'before' the big bang. We are not talking 
> about the same thing and there is no contradiction.

  So you are talking about cosmogony, while I am talking about the Big Bang
theory?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message