Big Bang Now

[Singularitarian]

Ignoring evidence that cannot be refuted. Typical crankary of the meek in statements that don't uphold truth.

 

[Dorfl]

This is the big bang.

Bang.

Forget light cones.

Everything thing is happening all at once.

Huh?

Could you clarify that, please?

 

[Dorfl]

It does mean that, because if it didn't, we would not have a big bang model where everything came from an infinitesimally-small region. You'd be left with something similar like the Ekpyrotic Theory, which does not encorporate a big bang.

I'm sorry, but I still do not see what it is about infinite density which necessarily implies the creation of time.

 

[quarky]

Huh?

Could you clarify that, please?

A bit, perhaps.
The singularity still exists. Our perception focuses on one of many potential universes that could come into being, had the big bang occurred.
The initial particle is not bound by "C", it manages all the subsequent particles required to manifest material. It changes spin and position to be all 6 quarks, and all the rest, at a speed that we can't grasp. C to the Cth power. Yet it remains intact in a spaceless zone, pre-big bang.

We're assembled from it. However you look at it.

 

[Dorfl]

A bit, perhaps.
The singularity still exists. Our perception focuses on one of many potential universes that could come into being, had the big bang occurred.
The initial particle is not bound by "C", it manages all the subsequent particles required to manifest material. It changes spin and position to be all 6 quarks, and all the rest, at a speed that we can't grasp. C to the Cth power. Yet it remains intact in a spaceless zone, pre-big bang.

We're assembled from it. However you look at it.

I've never heard of anything like that before. Do you have a source so I could read up more on it?

 

[Singularitarian]

I'm sorry, but I still do not see what it is about infinite density which necessarily implies the creation of time.

Because if we re-wound the universe back to some primal begininning, then we find all of energy and matter infinitely compressed with an infinite density.

 

[quarky]

I've never heard of anything like that before. Do you have a source so I could read up more on it?

I'm the source. occasionly, I toss out a bit of it around here. I call it the single quark hypothesis. Its not popular. some night, if I get drunk enough, I'll toss out the whole thing. One of its implications is that sub-atomic particles are able to express as different conglomerations, simultaneously, for lack of better terms.

 

[Dorfl]

Because if we re-wound the universe back to some primal begininning, then we find all of energy and matter infinitely compressed with an infinite density.

Extrapolating backwards from the data we have about the Universe's present and past rates of expansion, we eventually reach a time where the density approaches infinity, yes. However, that does not necessarily imply that that point in time is also the earliest point in time. It is still possible that time continues past the Big Bang.

 

[Dorfl]

I'm the source. occasionly, I toss out a bit of it around here. I call it the single quark hypothesis. Its not popular. some night, if I get drunk enough, I'll toss out the whole thing. One of its implications is that sub-atomic particles are able to express as different conglomerations, simultaneously, for lack of better terms.

Sounds like a good theory. I have a similar theory that Santa is actually Thor who has retired, and it's not very popular either.

 

[ben m]

Because if we re-wound the universe back to some primal begininning, then we find all of energy and matter infinitely compressed with an infinite density.

That's close enough to true for some purposes, but this is wrong in a way that explains your "ekpyrotic is not the big bang" statements.

Better would be:
If we re-wind the Universe back towards some primal beginning, we find that all of the energy and matter is so compressed that we don't know enough physics to rewind any further. In fact, the naive "rewinding", where you pretend that GR is always true, seems to predict infinite density---a singularity. Various theories (inflation, ekpyrotic, etc.) cite different directions for the earliest rewinding.

 

[quarky]

Sounds like a good theory. I have a similar theory that Santa is actually Thor who has retired, and it's not very popular either.

Mine's a hypothesis. The math is sound, or not wrong, at least.

 

[Singularitarian]

That's close enough to true for some purposes, but this is wrong in a way that explains your "ekpyrotic is not the big bang" statements.

Better would be:
If we re-wind the Universe back towards some primal beginning, we find that all of the energy and matter is so compressed that we don't know enough physics to rewind any further. In fact, the naive "rewinding", where you pretend that GR is always true, seems to predict infinite density---a singularity. Various theories (inflation, ekpyrotic, etc.) cite different directions for the earliest rewinding.

Oh please,

qoute me were i related the Ekp. Theory to the BB, and i will subdue to your arguement, otherwise, stop making these elaborated tales up.

 

[Singularitarian]

Mine's a hypothesis. The math is sound, or not wrong, at least.

The math isnt sound. Mapping your theory in my head does give one inconsistency, so it does not hold.

 

[Dorfl]

The math isnt sound. Mapping your theory in my head does give one inconsistency, so it does not hold.

What is that inconsistency?

 

[Singularitarian]

You said;

''Yes... The concept of space-time implies that you can see things as being stuck in amber. But an observer will at any point in that amber have a present, which is a hyperplane cutting through the amber. So it should still be possible to answer whether that hyperplane intersects the part of space-time where the density goes towards infinity.''

Which is all right but the bolded part.

In reply - the singularity does not need to imply intersects that relatively imply the infinite density is of th spacetime frame you gave it in present time. Though i am impressed by this conclusion, because essentially nothing exists other than present time, but with the thermodynamical violation of the conservation of energy due to the uncertainty principle inherent as an origin of the ZPF tells us that if the universe has energy, many conclusions suggest its density has changed due to dispersion in expansion. If you want references, i will give them.

 

[Dorfl]

In reply - the singularity does not need to imply intersects that relatively imply the infinite density is of th spacetime frame you gave it in present time. Though i am impressed by this conclusion, because essentially nothing exists other than present time, but with the thermodynamical violation of the conservation of energy due to the uncertainty principle inherent as an origin of the ZPF tells us that if the universe has energy, many conclusions suggest its density has changed due to dispersion in expansion. If you want references, i will give them.

Come again?

I'm sorry, but I cannot make sense of this. It seems like the first sentence is missing a few words that would be necessary for the whole post to be intelligible.

Note that I am not disagreeing with the content of the post, yet. I'm just saying that it contains too incorrect language for me to understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Singularitarian]

Goodnight.