On 19/07/2010 7:24 PM, Warp wrote:
>    So at which point did they go extint, and why?
>

You are on a looser. Faith needs no rational.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19-7-2010 13:52, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was 
>> created.
> 
>   Are you sure about that? The Big Bang theory cannot go back to the
> initial singularity because there are no established theories which could
> be used to describe what happened when the universe was smaller than a
> certain (larger-than-zero) size. As wikipedia puts it: "there is no physical
> model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence
> (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity."
> 
>   There's thus a finite limit beyond which current theories cannot go
> because of lacking theories. Hence it's impossible to say what exactly
> happened before that.

I fail to see how that is incompatible with what I said.

Post a reply to this message

On 19/07/2010 8:19 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 19-7-2010 13:52, Warp wrote:
>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
>>> created.
>>
>> Are you sure about that? The Big Bang theory cannot go back to the
>> initial singularity because there are no established theories which could
>> be used to describe what happened when the universe was smaller than a
>> certain (larger-than-zero) size. As wikipedia puts it: "there is no
>> physical
>> model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence
>> (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum
>> gravity."
>>
>> There's thus a finite limit beyond which current theories cannot go
>> because of lacking theories. Hence it's impossible to say what exactly
>> happened before that.
>
> I fail to see how that is incompatible with what I said.
>

It is not so do not worry. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 19-7-2010 13:52, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was 
> >> created.
> > 
> >   Are you sure about that? The Big Bang theory cannot go back to the
> > initial singularity because there are no established theories which could
> > be used to describe what happened when the universe was smaller than a
> > certain (larger-than-zero) size. As wikipedia puts it: "there is no physical
> > model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence
> > (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity."
> > 
> >   There's thus a finite limit beyond which current theories cannot go
> > because of lacking theories. Hence it's impossible to say what exactly
> > happened before that.

> I fail to see how that is incompatible with what I said.

  If there's no physical model that can explain the earliest moments of the
universe, how can you say that "at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
created"? Exactly on which physical model is this claim based on? Or is it
simply a conjecture?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 19-7-2010 21:38, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 19-7-2010 13:52, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Big Bang theory says that at the moment of the Big Bang, time was 
>>>> created.
>>>   Are you sure about that? The Big Bang theory cannot go back to the
>>> initial singularity because there are no established theories which could
>>> be used to describe what happened when the universe was smaller than a
>>> certain (larger-than-zero) size. As wikipedia puts it: "there is no physical
>>> model that can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence
>>> (Planck time) because of a lack of a consistent theory of quantum gravity."
>>>
>>>   There's thus a finite limit beyond which current theories cannot go
>>> because of lacking theories. Hence it's impossible to say what exactly
>>> happened before that.
> 
>> I fail to see how that is incompatible with what I said.
> 
>   If there's no physical model that can explain the earliest moments of the
> universe, how can you say that "at the moment of the Big Bang, time was
> created"? Exactly on which physical model is this claim based on? Or is it
> simply a conjecture?

No time without space, before the big bang no space -> no time.

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. 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.

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2010-07-20 06:52, Warp wrote:
>    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.

Of course, we also can't say "this /didn't/ happen" (ie "God didn't 
cause it" [for certain definitions of 'god']).

It seems to me there's a short story by Clarke or Asimov or one of those...

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2010-07-20 06:52, Warp wrote:
> >    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.

> Of course, we also can't say "this /didn't/ happen" (ie "God didn't 
> cause it" [for certain definitions of 'god']).

  Would that be the infamous "god of the gaps"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>> Of course, we also can't say "this /didn't/ happen" (ie "God didn't 
>> cause it" [for certain definitions of 'god']).
> 
>   Would that be the infamous "god of the gaps"?

I think he was referring to this.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

-- 
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

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.

>> 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.

Post a reply to this message