Origin of the universe

Aqueous Id said:
Not to put the proverbial spoon in his mouth, but I think Dywyddyr is thinking "where's the beef?"

I've been standing here at McDywyddyr's for quite a while and haven't gotten hardly a crumb out of him.

Although I did get a drop of naysayer salad dressing (all vinegar).
Click to expand...
I'd demand my money back.
You don't get Beef with Word Salad.

We are trying to see how Everything came from Nothing without a chef in the kitchen. Beggars can't be choosers, especially when the plate is empty.

Start with an empty plate, put images of the meal on it, spin the plate and the things will flick off to the side, catch them and enjoy your whole-some salad.
 
Robittybob1 said:
I'd demand my money back.
You don't get Beef with Word Salad.

We are trying to see how Everything came from Nothing without a chef in the kitchen. Beggars can't be choosers, especially when the plate is empty.

Start with an empty plate, put images of the meal on it, spin the plate and the things will flick off to the side, catch them and enjoy your whole-some salad.
Click to expand...

An the singularity is what's left in the trash compactor after pulling the crank.
 
Aqueous Id said:
no it isn't nonzero, or no it isn't zero?
which (under the cited assumption) is nonzero volume.
Click to expand...
Oops.
:eek:
Sorry, I misread your comment as "zero volume".

Robittybob1 said:
I think you just gave it to me, with distinction.
What didn't you like about the meal?:)
Click to expand...
It was worthless, meaningless nonsense.

Robittybob1 said:
We are trying to see how Everything came from Nothing without a chef in the kitchen.
Click to expand...
So you didn't bother to read the link provided in post #89?
 
Dywyddyr said:
Oops.
:eek:
Sorry, I misread your comment as "zero volume".


It was worthless, meaningless nonsense.


So you didn't bother to read the link provided in post #89?
Click to expand...

Stenger's version is a probability theory, it's not a proposal of how it happens. It's fairly useless in this thread. he also cheats quite a lot, with negative time, and such. It's a pretty bad piece of work. He also fails to realise what symmetry is although he uses symmetry, and so he is mostly working with effects, rather than causes. It's the sort of stuff that sounds clever, but only if you are yourself quite dim.

1 + -1 = 0 blows it away, because you then have to be clever enough to know why.
 
Last edited:
Aqueous Id said:
In the Big Bang model, it's just there, then it explodes.

(Problematic in the model is that of the singularity beginning to explode at all when there is no time or space in which to begin).
Click to expand...

AI, you've said this before.

This wasn't an explosion. What there was, was not violently thrust 'outward'. There was no 'outward'. What there was expanded. There was more of what there was.
 
AlexG said:
AI, you've said this before.

This wasn't an explosion. What there was, was not violently thrust 'outward'. There was no 'outward'. What there was expanded. There was more of what there was.
Click to expand...

AlexG . . . to use your favorite term . . . ."word salad!
 
AlexG said:
AI, you've said this before.

This wasn't an explosion. What there was was not violently thrust 'outward'. There was no 'outward'. What there was expanded. There was more of what there was.
Click to expand...

I was only borrowing the term used here and elsewhere.

Yes there was an expansion. Of what, from what? And how does expansion occur without space? So expansion means the creation of spacetime, among other things.

"Before" the BBS expands - what then? I am supposing that the singularity is suspended in a timeless state, therefore eternal, and co"existing" with the temporal disintegrating products of the initial inflation/expansion.
 
AlexG said:
AI, you've said this before.

This wasn't an explosion. What there was, was not violently thrust 'outward'. There was no 'outward'. What there was expanded. There was more of what there was.
Click to expand...
That's multiplied or you could say increased, whereas "expanded" means the same stuff but taking up a larger volume of space.:)
 
According to the laws of quantum mechanics, random virtual energy fluctuations may occur constantly. As long as the net energy is zero, there are no conservation laws violated.

Let us abandon the relativistic concept of the zero size, infinitely dense singularity. This is what we seem to get get when we apply the laws of relativity to the quantum realm, where they do not apply.

If instead we consider something the size of a proton, with the mass of a tennis ball, and apply Guth's Inflationary theory, then we have the universe we observe today.
 
wlminex said:
AlexG . . . to use your favorite term . . . ."word salad!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry wl, if you couldn't understand it. I made it as simple as I could. I guess it just wasn't simple enough for you.
 
AlexG said:
According to the laws of quantum mechanics, random virtual energy fluctuations may occur constantly. As long as the net energy is zero, there are no conservation laws violated.

Let us abandon the relativistic concept of the zero size, infinitely dense singularity. This is what we seem to get get when we apply the laws of relativity to the quantum realm, where they do not apply.

If instead we consider something the size of a proton, with the mass of a tennis ball, and apply Guth's Inflationary theory, then we have the universe we observe today.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth#Inflationary_theory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top