andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I am talking about both time and space. You know, that 4 dimensional thing.

  No, your claim was, exactly, "time was created in the Big Bang".

  There is a significant difference between "time-space (along with all the
energy in the universe) was compressed in a singularity, which expanded" and
"time was *created* in the Big Bang".

  That's exactly like saying that "matter was *created* in the Big Bang".
The Big Bang theory says no such 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 are still missing my point entirely.

  You talk like I am saying that there was a time before the Big Bang,
that time is something detached from the universe and that it just goes
on independently of what the universe happens to be doing, and that at
some point in time this universe just popped into existence.

  I am *not* saying that, even though you seemingly think so. Please read
what I *am* saying. What I am saying is that "claiming that the Big Bang
theory says that time was created at the moment of the Big Bang is wrong;
the theory says no such thing".

  The Big Bang theory says nothing about how anything was "created" or
where the initial singularity might have come from or what might have
happened "before" it (whatever the definition of "before" might be, if
it's even possible to define it). What the Big Bang theory *does* say is
that the entire universe was compressed in a singularity, which expanded.
That's it.

  The field of science which speculates on where that came from is called
cosmogony. There are many conjectures (one example being that the universe
is actually cyclic, expanding and then collapsing back to a singularity,
from which it expands again, and so on, although the relatively recent
discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe has discredited
that conjecture a bit).

> >   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.

  No. It says that universe was compressed in a singularity from which it
expanded. Different thing.

> 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.

  That's fine by me. I asked you which physical model you base your
"creation" claims on, and you refused to answer. Clearly you *don't*
have an answer (because there isn't currently one). The Big Bang theory
isn't trying to answer that either, unlike what you seem to think.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message