Somebody CONDOUNDED ABOUT “ GENESIS “

[Kramer]

 

Strange

It is not my math. You posted it. As I say, I'm not sure what solution you are looking for. And I don't know why you have posted it in a question about the big bang.
---- Isn’t math the Almighty’s instrument? Wasn’t with math that scientifically is proved the creation of universe in Big Bang? And isn’t this event the beginning of movement? The simple equation is the equation of movement. Here must have begun the math.
Yes. This equation seems without meaning. But my guts say that it has something to say: or S = infinite and indeed t = infinite and dt = 0 or all are 0 and there is only stir of water.

The CMB is calculated from the using the FLRW metric to extrapolate back to the earlu hot dense state of the universe. And applying well-understood physics to those conditions.
(I don't know how you can describe something that anyone can measure as "so called".)
----- I see. Physics conditions used are nothing but Plank constants, interpreted as beginning particle with all it properties, and a metric ( I admit – am ignorant about) but sure violate the main factor about extension of time: the postulate of velocity. And with this wiggle used, I wonder, why make a statement that age of universe is 16 billiards years and not 16 thousand?
My point is, if you have questions then you should ask them in the appropriate section. Many of the people who could give good asnwers regarding cosmology do not visit the Speculations forum. So if you posted questions in the right place, you might get better answers. And you wouldn't have to put up with me.
---- Maybe I wanted to know what think about this issue, my friend Stranger,--- and others.
There is zero evidence that the universe was created from nothing. It isn't science. It is a straw man argument. Stop going on about it.

Evidence? From 16 billiard years ago? O dear. Even math., this ideal instrument of precision, is not able to pacify controversies produced by human brain.

You can, of course, believe whatever you want. I don't care. But you insist the science is wrong because it disagrees with your beliefs (and you don't understand the science). That is irrational.

If you had a scientific model of an eternal, unlimited universe then you could compare it against observation and see if it works or not.
---- I believe in science, especially in Physics. When I watch a face from far away friend, in my computer, this is wonderful, but not unnatural. Like Baang. Like pop. Etc.

Neither do I.
--- Glad, even a bit dubious.

Genesis is a story about the creation of the universe. The big bang theory says nothing about the creation of the universe.
---- I doubt. If you think about the discrepancy on time, like a week or 16 billiard years, you understand, that depends on velocity.

[Phi for All]

Maybe that is because your link gives an error "404 Not Found".

 

Fixed.

[Strange]

Isn’t math the Almighty’s instrument?

 

I don't know. You will have to ask her.

 

Wasn’t with math that scientifically is proved the creation of universe in Big Bang?

 

Nothing is proved in science.

 

There is no evidence that the universe was created in the big bang theory. You have repeated this straw man argument several times now. Why?

 

----- I see. Physics conditions used are nothing but Plank constants, interpreted as beginning particle with all it properties, and a metric ( I admit – am ignorant about) but sure violate the main factor about extension of time: the postulate of velocity. And with this wiggle used, I wonder, why make a statement that age of universe is 16 billiards years and not 16 thousand?

 

Sorry, I don't understand any of that. I suggest you write in short, declarative statements or questions.

 

I believe in science, especially in Physics.

 

Then why do you disagree with its conclusions simply because you don't like them? You have no evidence, no alternative model. You just have an emotional dislike of the theory. Well, that's just too bad.

 

 

If you think about the discrepancy on time, like a week or 16 billiard years, you understand, that depends on velocity

 

What discrepancy? What velocity?

[Kramer]

 

 

Stranger
I don't know. You will have to ask her.

Nothing is proved in science.

There is no evidence that the universe was created in the big bang theory. You have repeated this straw man argument several times now. Why?

Sorry, I don't understand any of that. I suggest you write in short, declarative statements or questions.

Then why do you disagree with its conclusions simply because you don't like them? You have no evidence, no alternative model. You just have an emotional dislike of the theory. Well, that's just too bad.

What discrepancy? What velocity?

------ Well Stranger. I am sure now that our conversation is taking the laconic form: no, yes. That make me think about two options:
or you don’t want to continue the conversation, which will turn in a debate.
Or you have nothing to say about my issues of my post.
This because: 1) or you are not able to withstand a debate because you see that my arguments are right. 2) or you have vague ideas , digested without chews, about the Big Bang speculation, even though you have read a lot of books and I not.
I am trying to clear the fog with some questions:

1---Admit, you, or not that Big Bang speculation (Call it, if you want, theory) is about history of creation of universe? Any your answer --- about approve you it or not
2--- Is it violated Einstein postulate about velocity in this speculation?
If yes: isn’t it an argument about “ time span from moment of creation until now”?
3 --- I bring a simple equation of movement for the first moment of time “ in creation of universe”. I was eager to see a solving of it‘s derivation from the expert of math. None. Only was told that the equation is wrong, without any prove.
In the previous post I suggested that the only two solving are: or ideal time and space are zero. Or they are infinite. Again silence?
4--- We are debating in the speculation forum, not to chime with scientist’s statements, which seems wrong, or worse fish dubious. If I say that I don’t trust some weird statements of physics like creation of particles, of universes, from nothing, that doesn’t mean I dislike achievements of science, practical or theoretic based in experiments. What I dislike are achievements “interpreted with aim to obscure science with metaphysic “.

[Phi for All]

1---Admit, you, or not that Big Bang speculation (Call it, if you want, theory) is about history of creation of universe? Any your answer --- about approve you it or not

 

Well, BBT only goes back to a fraction of a second after the cosmic expansion. So if, IF, that's the moment the universe was created, BBT doesn't address that. BBT is about what happened after expansion started.

[Strange]

1---Admit, you, or not that Big Bang speculation (Call it, if you want, theory) is about history of creation of universe? Any your answer --- about approve you it or not

 

I have said several times: the big bang theory says NOTHING about the creation of the universe.

 

The big bang describes the evolution of the universe from an earlier state. It does not say how that earlier state came to be. We don't know why that earlier state came to be.

 

So, in summary, the big bang theory does not say anything about the creation of the universe.

 

Is that clear?

 

2--- Is it violated Einstein postulate about velocity in this speculation?

 

I assume you mean the rule that in special relativity nothing can travel faster than light?

 

No, this is not violated by the big bang theory. A few points to explain this:

 

1. Special relativity only deals with objects in inertial motion. It does not include gravity and therefore does not include expanding space and the big bang model.

 

2. The big bang model is based on general relativity. This was develoepd by Einstein as an extension to special relativity. Therefore they must be consistent.

 

3. The light speed limit is only a "local" limit in general relativity; that is, it only applies where the situation apprxomates to special relativity.

 

4. Do you really think no one has ever asked that question before?

 

3 --- I bring a simple equation of movement for the first moment of time “ in creation of universe”. I was eager to see a solving of it‘s derivation from the expert of math. None. Only was told that the equation is wrong, without any prove.

In the previous post I suggested that the only two solving are: or ideal time and space are zero. Or they are infinite. Again silence?

 

As your equation does not seem to be based on the FLRW solution to general relativity it is hard to see how it is relevant to the big bang. The big bang model does not describe material moving through space so your equation for velocity is not relevant.

 

4--- We are debating in the speculation forum, not to chime with scientist’s statements, which seems wrong, or worse fish dubious. If I say that I don’t trust some weird statements of physics like creation of particles, of universes, from nothing

 

There is no statement in physics about the creation of particles, of universes, from nothing.

 

This is a "straw man" fallacy.

 

, that doesn’t mean I dislike achievements of science, practical or theoretic based in experiments.

 

The big bang theory is based on theory (general relativity) and experiment.

 

What I dislike are achievements “interpreted with aim to obscure science with metaphysic “.

 

It appears that you don't like things that you don't understand or that disagree with your intuition/emotion/beliefs/.

And if you object to the big bang again because of "creation" or "something from nothing" you will be pleased to know that I will ignore all your future posts!

[Mordred]

 

Fixed.

Thanks Phi didn't realize The link wasn't working.

[Kramer]

Strange

And if you object to the big bang again because of "creation" or "something from nothing" you will be pleased to know that I will ignore all your future posts!----- The big bang without creation and expansion of space-time, (in accordance with teaching of St Agostiny-- ha), and without “let it be light”, is a soap bubble.
As of ignoring my posts, I am pleased by your wish. I too will ignore yours for your pleasure.
Is somebody read for padlock?

 

 

[Strange]

Will you at least answer one question:

 

Do you understand that the big bang theory does NOT say anything about "creation"? Yes or No.