andrel wrote:
> yikes, my mind boggles again as it does everytime when someone uses the 
> phrase "before the big bang".

I know that *our* time started with the big bang. But you're giving no 
indication that there wasn't something out there for the "big bang" to have 
come from.

> There is no before, because there was neither space nor time for 
> anything to happen.

How do you know, if your physics doesn't cover or explain the event?

*That* is what we're asking.  You have a singularity. You're assuming 
there's nothing on the other side of the singularity. Why is that?

In other words, why are you so convinced that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
is actually necessarily incorrect?

I'm sure this guy publishing letters in Nature's Physics journal is simply 
confused by the counter-intuitive nature of physics, right?

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n8/abs/nphys654.html


I'm quite comfortable with the concept that time started with the big bang. 
I just don't know that there's actually *evidence* for that beyond the fact 
that the math we use *breaks down* at the big bang. In order for you to 
definitely assert that there was no time or space before then, you actually 
have to explain how you know, instead of just handwaving that because you're 
right, I'm mistaken to ask how you know you're right.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message