Cadmus

I agree that space existed immediately before the big bang, but not indefinitely before. Why must this be so, in your opinion? I agree that post big bang this must be so, as spce and time combine as space-time. However, why must it be so prior to the big bang? Please explain why this must be so.

If you consider only the time since the big bang, as it typically the case, then I agree with you. This joining is known as space-time. Unlike time, space was born in the big bang, or perhaps just before the big bang. Space will die in the big crunch, only to be reborn in the next cycle. Therefore, time is infinite, and continues thorugh each cycle of existence of the universe, but space if born and dies in each cycle of big bang and big crunch.

You can get oriented at http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/.

There you go again. You want anyone but yourself to have to think. How cute of you, youngster. I''m sorry. Wasn't I clear enough? Powerful threat there. Yes. In fact, this post of yours has degenrated to the point that you have zero to say about the topic at hand. All you are doing here is crying. Everyone is dumb but you, is it? How childish of you. No surprise there. If you will look, I have inserted my position increasingly forcefully in recent posts to make sure that you understand it clearly. You have been doing the opposite. You are the one dropping any actual ideas. I think that you are delusional. You seem to be looking in a mirror and attributing to me the faults that exist within you. If you do not want to talk about the topic of the thread, then let us stop. For you to whine like a baby about how everything is my fault and you have no need to be responsible for your own words is worthless. Even you must realize that now, don't you?

Although I do not think that this relates to a line or ray, I think that it is possible to move at various speeds through time. As the speed of light is constant in space-time, the greater the rate of motion through space the less the motion through time, and vice versa. Are you familiar with the twin paradox? I think that when you sleep you move the fastest through time, or age the fastest. When you are outdoors exercising at your maximum, then you are moving relatively much more slowly through time.

Murder is a legal term. There is no such thing in law as a "legal murder". Now I understand. Instead of recognizing that you have responsibility for your words, you decided to cry like a little baby, in the only way you know how so it seems. If you are a whiny little baby, go whine to your mommy. Maybe she pretends that she understands your dribble. You are with the big boys now, and we don't have to coddle whiny little babies like yourself. You cry that I don't understand whay you mean, yet here you are completely distorting my meaning. You claimed that you used logic. When I asked for detail, you talked about women who have an abortion using logic. I drew the natural conclusion, but knowing that my conclusion might be mistaken on the basis of your sloppy grammar I asked for clarification. Now you suggest that it doesn't matter if you are a woman. You don't seem to care if your meaning gets across. You behave like a cry baby, and now you have degenrated this discussion to your whining. Do you think that your cry baby antics will really improve the outcome and hide the fact that your English is horrendous? Go whine to your mommy and get her comfirmation that it isn't your fault. Go ahead. I'll wait. Are you back already? Good. Let's continue. You make a statement, and then you say that I should not draw meaning from your words, but should somehow know what you mean. I think that I do understand what you mean, and I disagree with it. Since we have only opinions to express, there should not be a problem. But, crying seems to be what you do best when someone does not recognize fanstatic objective worth in your opinion.

I am of the opinion that a voluntary abortion, given that the father has no argument, is never murder. Whether or not you or I approve should not be a factor in a woman's decision. After 6 months, a fetus could live outside of the mother's body. This makes the area grayer. However, I think that the government should not legislate what goes on within a woman's body. The voluntary termination of a pregnancy cannot ever be determined to be murder unilaterally by the state. I never suggested that abortion is OK. I suggested that it should not be legislated by government. What you seem to be saying is that if you use sloppy grammar, and then is someone else misunderstands your meaning due to your sloppy grammar, then all fault lies with the listener because after all you know what you mean? Why does your gener have anything to do with it? You discussed how a woman would use logic. However, the context was establsihed in an earlier post, where you stated that you would use logic. I don't know if I am supposed to realize that you are a woman, or whether this is another example of your sloppy grammar and I am supposed to recognize your "real" meaning, ignoring the fact that you were talking about you and logic and as an example discussed women and logic. If I jump to conclusions, you question me. If I let your words speak for themselves, then I can be confused. Either way, you seem ready to blame everyone but yourself for miscommuncation through your words. I am sorry if you are used to communication with people where sloppy grammar is adequate. When I challenge you, you resent the fact that I cannot read your mind. If you wish to engage in superficial communication, where I just guess your meaning and you can just yell at me when I misunderstand, then what is the point of this discussion? Do you really feel no obligation to speak in a manner that clearly indicates your meaning, rather than being vague and forcing me to understand somehow magically what you really mean? Do you really think that people understand your meaning to a very deep level when you speak with vagueness and your words have multiple meanings?

I think that time is cyclic at all levels, from the cycles of time that mankind counts to the cycles of time of the universe.

This seems like a good question, and it deserves thought. I will think about it. However, if the universe has been here forever, then it has been passing through time forever. As it passes through time, it by necessity reaches points in time. The fact that you and I are discussing this question is evidence that now is one of those points. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in the study of infinity to describe an answer to the question as you posed it. Perhaps someone else on the forum can lend a hand.

Very nice question. I think that this deserves some thought. Let me take an initial stab at a response: Even along a continuum that extends forever, there are distinct points. Not all points on the continuum will be reached, or it would not be infinite. However, some of them must. We are now at some of those.

I think that these points are irrelevant. You seem to be attempting to find a single possible exception to my statement as a means to refute my entire argument. I concede that there can be rare exceptions. So what. Your examples are extreme, and could only possiblly account for the tiniest fraction of cases. You call my complainst stupid, but do not think to consider the sloppiness of your grammar ever at fault. Whatever. Why are you so intent at drawing a line as a reason to deny the entire argument? Are you female? I believe that you were talking about your use of logic, not some womans. Perhaps this is another case where I am supposed to just know what you mean. Anyway, I consider decisions concerning abortion to be highly emotional, and not all about logic. You cast blame on everyone else for the sloppiness of your grammar. Everyone but yourself.

Please rephrase the question. I don't really understand what you are asking.

Some actions are clear cut. Others are not. Your examples ignore that fact. I think that you would be a bad person if you attempted to force a person to behave in a way that is coincident with your morals and opposed to hers. Abortion is not a clear cut issue. You think that if someone does not understand your words, then it is completely that other person's fault. Yet your words tend to be sloppy sometimes. You use the pronoun "you", and you pretend that all of us known that you don't mean what you say. What you really mean is you yourself, not me or anyone else. Why not just say what you mean, instead of forcing everyone to just know what you mean. COMPLETELY INCORRECT, in my opinion. I disagree. What does logic have to do with when a woman decides that the life inside of her deserves it to have its rights supercede those of her own? Once again you blame me for the lack of clarity of your words. Why not imporve the quality of your words, rather than placing the blame on others for your words.

Thank you for your offer. Although I do not subscribe completely to their theory, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a theory that includes a big crunch. I am sure that you have heard of them. Please refute their theory. Do not refute their theory by using citing someone else, because then you would have to provide evidence that one person should be accepted over the other. I would like you to personally evaluate their evidence, although I am sure that perhaps you have already done so, and explain in a way that all of can understand what evidence you personally have that makes their theory impossible. You have asked me to provide a certain type of evidence. I am sure that if you read their work you will find evidence of that nature. Tell us why their theory cannot be accurate, and further provide experiemental evidence that we should all accept as clearly being completely superior to theirs. Thank you.

I am quite willing to engage in a scientific discussion. However, your attitude does not make it seem at all as though you are interested in a disucssion. You present a couuple of numbers, which you admit that you have not examined yourself, and then you DEMAND that I refute them as a prerequisite to continuing a discussion of my thinking, which has been only just initiated. So, if you had read someone else then you would be defending their theories. If you don't read the data, then how are you so insistent that I provide data that you won't read? I disagree. You would be willing to consider yourself qualified to categorically refute data that contradicts data that you have accepted without your own analysis. That is not what science is all about. But I wonder how you feel qualified to evaluate it. You would have to pass it through someone whom you trust. I think that it is a fair assumption that no matter how qualified they are to attempt a theory based on the current evidence, such evidence will not withstand the next century. Therefore, I think that you are ascribing to them the position of god, rather than scientist. Excellent.

Here is another assumption on your part of the type that I am talking about. How do you claim to know what assumptions I base my theory on? Cute. Your statement is quite false. I contend that I have absolutely no requirement on this forum to explain any data in a manner that satisfies you. How can you even make such a claim. Furthermore, is it your contention that you personally can and have refuted all evidence that people with alternative theories to yours have presented over the past few years? If you cannot or if you have not, then based on your own requirements how can you even dare to make the statements that you have. According to your statement, I could go out on the web and find any evidence at all that contradicts your theory, and if you cannot or if you have no desire to attempt to personally refute the evidence then you must accept that your own theory is in a secondary position. I don't think that you feel that way, and neither do I. Good for you. The probability that your concept of physics will retain it form over the next century is also very small indeed. Does that stop you from holding any theory? If you have not analyzed the data in detail, then what is your point. You want me to provide evidence that you claim to be qualified to examine but which you make no promises that you will actually examine it, based on your past actions. I wonder if you even understand the sense that I mean. Would you care to elaborate? I am sure that you might also categorically state that the probability that the data that you place so much reliance on will stand up over the next century is also extremely small. Is that of value? Can I ask you on what basis you consider yourself qualified to analyze the data. You have repeately told me about my assumptions. How can you know my assumptions? Do you think that maybe you might be making a number of assumptions about my assumptions based on less than adequate data? You know nothing about my theory at all, other than that I state that I think that what started in the big bang will end in the big crunch. Or do you know more about my theory?

You may be correct in understanding his meaning better than me. But I believe that he made it quite clear that he thiinks that time moves at a constant rate. I think that there is no basis for this contention when considering relativity.

I disagree with you. It is not up to me to explain this to your satisfaction. The data on which your numbers are based is shaky at best. There are numerous fudge factors that represent unknowns. The data is sketchy and incomplete. You are on good ground taking your numbers as a good guide, but you enter very shaky ground if accept that this is most likely the absolute truth and the absolute last word on the subject. Furthermore, it is not fair of you to demand that I supply evidence only in the form that you are willing to accept it in order for my theory to have any potential validity. When 90% of the universe is considered to be made up of phenomena labeled "dark", this is a sure sign that much is not known, and our current understanding is not absolute. I have never read a high caliber scientist claim outright that there is no possibility that the big crunch idea could make a comeback. Have you? Furthermore, how qualified are you to determine what evidence is acceptable and what evidence is not? I have no problem with you holding an opinion that is very different from mine. But for you to demand that it is up to me to provide evidence in a form that fits your model is not an approach that I feel compelled to comply with. Are you seriously suggesting that you have sufficient data, and that you are sufficiently qualified to analyze the data on your own, such that you can state categorically that the data is conclusive and the concept of a big crunch absolutely has a 0% possibility of being in our future?

I think that the first reason that you gave is far more important than the second. The second reason is a valuable plus, but not the driving factor. China feels that Taiwan was stolen with the support of the U.S., and feels that Taiwan should be reunited with the mainland. The president of Taiwan, Chen Shui-Bian, is very pro independence.

You are completely correct. If you completely ignore the third dimension, as you would do, then what is left is as you say, a 2 dimensioal surface. My point is that I do not consider that you are in this case justified in ignoring the 3rd dimension. I think that if you fudge the numbers just a bit to make an example that is much easier to work with, it will not have the same validity as a model that supports the evidence in a more thorough way, and in this case that fudging the data to make it behave as a 2d surface loses exactly that data which would disprove your theory. Just my opinion, of course.

No. I am claiming that it is likely that space has a center, and that the center is at the site of the big bang, which will be the site of the big crunch.

Since you are asking me, then I will give you my answer. The answer is, as I have said, that there is no origination, as time is infinite in both directions. I consider that time is infinite into the past, and so there was no beginning. I say that there was no beginning, and there will be no end. I quite agree. However, let me explain what your sentence means. Every THING has a beginning and an end. Things are objects that occupy space, or more properly space-time. Space is finite, and so everything in space-time has a beginning and an end. Time, however, is infinite, and is not a thing, as it does not occupy space. Therefore, your statement that everything has a beginning and an end is a statement about space and has no relaionship to time.

OK. However, when I consider your example, I am free to recognize that what you call a 2d surface is actually a 3d surface, and therefore I may treat it as a 3d surface, such that I can find a center. In other words, I do not need to recognize, and I do not so recognize, your contention that this proves what you claim it proves.

Current theory places less probability on a big crunch. However, the fact that partial data with a high degree of bias does not currently make a big crunch the most likely scenario cannot, and does not among scientists, completely rule out the possibility with any high degree of absoluteness.