Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Non-religious Evidence That God Exists

Recommended Posts

Sorry you have a reading disability Russell . Although I suspect it is likely feigned , the question was quite clear and precise. Do you or does Science know anything of the Universe * BEFORE* 3 Planck segments *AFTER* Inflation started ?

 

Save all your B.S. and just answer yes or no . And if you answer yes , please provide references, as by now you have no credibility in giving an honest answer ,and your opinion is meaningless .

 

 So try again Russell , save the games for Donald_M , your equally uninformed and facetious alter ego /

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Hi Eclipse

 

You can't do it can you Eclipse? You can't actually express that question in standard scientific notation so that a valid answer can be given. You ask about a time some imaginary unit (3 Plank Segments) after the start of inflation.  Inflation started at around 10-36 of a second after the start of the universe so we can say that whatever imaginary time you are talking about is after that.  The standard model explains that we can theoretically gather information from the end of the Planck Epoch which ended before Inflation started at around 10-44 of a second so eight orders of magnitude earlier than the start of inflation so, given what you have said that was at a time earlier than you are pointing to though exactly how much earlier depends on how long “3 Plank Segments” actually is.

 

LOL I tried googling “Planck Segment” again to see if I can work out what you’re talking about and all I got was lots of stuff about flooring and a few blog posts that look rather familiar, no physicist that I could find has ever used that terminology.

 

So try again Eclipse, try to express your question in standard scientific notation though you’ll find I already answered this question ages ago if you can do that.  Remember the question you can’t answer is “what time is it that you are referring to in seconds, what is ‘x’ in 10x seconds”?  Remember the limit to our potential knowledge is 10-43 of a second and the limit to our current knowledge is currently around 10-33 of a second. Inflation started at 10-36 of a second so around 1000000 x Planck Time units before the limit of our current knowledge.  Not sure where your “3 Planck Segments” could fit into that picture but if you could ever express it in scientific terms maybe I can help you.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , I'm surprised at how readily you expose your own ignorance . A Planck time  segment is a measure of time . You do know who Max Planck was , don't you ? HINT:   not a piece of wood .

 

 Stop playing dumb Russell and just answer the very simple question . No one knows the mechanism that started the Inflation of the Universe. Theoretical Physicists and Mathematicians by their calculations according to known Laws of Physics , can extrapolate back in time, in explaining what we observe today as the observable Universe. That point in time, which is the limit to which known laws of physics can be applied ,and  extrapolated back to, is * 3 Planck segments* [of time ] After the start of Inflation . You can twist that anyway you want to , call it whatever you wish , or play your word games and express your cognitive dissonance on the subject ,as you have been doing. However neither you nor Science can answer what took place BEFORE that point in time .

 

 Now I've just explained it the simplest of terms , that even an idiot could understand . So tell me Russell , what do you know of the Universe before that point in time. You can call that point 10 -43 , or 10 -47 , or 10 - any number you wish seconds , what occurred before that ?   What does Science know , what do you know ?   

 

P.s.  Hey genius , when you Google- Planck time Segment , be sure to capitalize the letter P , it's the name of the scientist who determined the time segment and/or distance .  Not a piece of wood Russell . [ but you knew that didn't you ? }

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I know who Max Planck is and what Planck Time is but you didn’t say that did you you said “Planck Segment”.  Planck time is that time I’ve been talking about by name from the start of this but you keep referring to it by other made up terms don’t you.  As I said a quick google search will show that that is not a term used by physicists, in fact all the hits I found on it were either related to wooden floors or in chat rooms so if you’ve learned the correct term, Plank Time, then you are making progress so that’s positive.

 

This time you’ve suggested I search for “Planck Time Segment”, that’s the first time in this long complicated discussion that you have used that term but I searched for it and found a total of three hits.  Planck Time shows ups in thousands of citations, it’s a common term in physics circles which is why I’ve been using it since the start of this but “Planck Segment” and “Planck Time Segment” are not, they are not terms in common use by physicists so why not use the standard terminology here Eclipse?

 

We don’t and probably can’t know anything from before the end of the Planck Epoch which is measured in Planck time and can be express in seconds as around 10-43 of a second after the initiation of the universe.  You’ll remember that is what I said at the start of this.  We can know that whatever was there was something that could produce a universe like the one we see but that’s it.

 

Inflation started sometime after that at around 10-36 of a second or 10000000000 times the length of the Planck Epoch after that. You’re suggestion that this limit was some “Planck Segments” after the start of inflation is obviously wrong no matter how long that time unit is.

 

Now we see again your lack of understanding of maths, you can’t just call that point 10-43 of a second, 10-47 of a second or any of the other numbers you have thrown out there.  The time for the end of the Planck Epoch is known quite precisely at around 10-43 of a second.  All of those other numbers you keep throwing around just show your ignorance of simple maths and of this topic.  Add that to the fact you can’t phrase your questions in standard language and you leave little doubt about your ignorance of this topic.  Well that and all the blather about me not knowing what I’m talking about when it’s you who keeps phrasing questions in made up terminology and trowing around times for it ranging over 10 orders of magnitude.

 

Russell

Edited by russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just more B.S. and Blather from you Russell . I suspect you have jumped into a subject you are not at all well versed in . An Atheist whose arguments are read and repeated, but without understanding of the subject you attempt to make your arguments with .

 You insist on arguing , that you don't understand a very basic term amongst theoretical Physicists who are trying to determine how the Universe came about . And as I stated, the fact of the matter is , their limit going backwards in time is precisely [as far as they know ] back to a time, 3 Planck segments of time After the Inflation began .

 If you knew what you were talking about , this term should not be so troublesome to you . A Planck Segment of time is a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. If you had any knowledge beyond your superficial and basically ignorant understanding of that , the question I ask would not perplex you [ although I believe that is a feigned on your part }.

 You are confused because you do not know the subject . The question was dumbed down [for your benefit] to a very basic level.  However your lack of study on the subject leaves you confused.

 

 It's very simple Russell , Inflation starts - three plank seconds After inflation tarts,  is where Science , and all the laws of Physics can be applied. NOTHING is known before that. If you wish to call that the Planck Epoch , suit yourself. However you twist and turn , you will not find anything in Theoretical Physics or Math , which can describe anything, nor is anything known before the time before those Three Planck Segment of time. You claim you can not grasp the meaning of that statement , and repeatedly come back with your smoke screen to hide your inability and ignorance on the subject .

 You have a problem Russell.   In addition , your ego will not allow you to provide an answer , which you know will be, SCIENCE knows nothing before that segment of time after Inflation started. There is nothing but conjecture and speculation with no evidence whatsoever indicating what may or may not have been before that time . All the time keeping in mind that all their calculations are based on cosmological constants which  may not be 100 % correct .  For each time anew particle is discovered , it alters the standard Model , which is based on those same cosmological constants. And also keep in mind that all Physicists are not even in agreement with this. However NONE have ventured anything but a guess as to what caused the Inflation or how it came about, they can only describe the formation of matter -galaxies , stars , gases etc , a short time after Inflation started.  If you can not understand what I have just stated , then I suggest you pick up some books on Theoretical Physics and Cosmology and expand your woefully inept ,superficial understanding of the subject.

 

Go do your homework Russell .

 

 

 

And as I said , if you have an answer , put it up [ with references ].

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

OK now you are getting closer to what I asked you to do, you are putting specific times onto your question.  So it was a Trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second you said.  A trillionth of a second is 10-9 seconds so a trillion, trillion, trillionth is 10-27 of a second.  Inflation started at 10-36 of a second and finished at around 10-33 of a second, the limit to our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch at around 10-43 of a second so how does this new time you have put up fit in.  Well basically it doesn’t.  Inflation is over by the time we get to 10-27 of a second.  The end of the Planck Epoch is even more over by the time we get to the time you have nominated so sorry you are wrong yet again.  Like I said all those numbers after the 10 that I’ve been quoting at you actually mean something, you can’t just say numbers between 10-47 and 10-27 are all the same, that’s a range of 20 orders of magnitude. Remember I illustrated what that would look like if you were quoting the population of a city, this new range is the equivalent of saying that “New York has a population of 1 or maybe it’s 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 but that doesn’t matter because they are the same thing”.  One of those numbers is bigger than the population of this entire planet but you are saying it’s the same as just one person.  Yes foolish indeed.

 

I understand that big numbers are scary and maths is difficult for some people.  Such people have very little chance of understanding this stuff.  Have a look at those figures and try to work out the difference between 10-27 and 10-43 because that difference is critical here.  If you can’t grasp those differences you have no chance of understanding what you are trying to talk about here Eclipse.

 

So one more time just for you, the limit to our potential knowledge off this universe goes back to 10-43 of a second or the end of the Planck Epoch, the limit to the current direct evidence we have takes us back to 10-34ish of a second though we can calculate further back from that evidence.  Inflation ended at 10-33ish of a second.  The time you have nominated is before the formation of Protons but well after the end of inflation as the universe cooled down towards the formation of the second round of evidence at 380000 years when the cosmic microwave background emerged from the soup of electrons that scattered light before then.  The time you have nominated is after the time of the formation of our earliest evidence from this event, the density and gravitational waves that were created during inflation.  The time you have nominated 10-27 of a second is arbitrary and doesn’t align with anything in the standard view of inflation.

 

Here’s some home work for you Eclipse.  The Planck Epoch has a very specific definition and this discussion would go better if you knew what it was, it ended before inflation began.  Mathematical Powers of 10 are critical to understanding these numbers you keep throwing out Eclipse, maybe you need to study them so that you understand what 10-43 of a second or 10-27 of a second actually mean.  Are you capable of doing that Eclipse?  Is this maths beyond you?  If not then try to prove it here by correctly using this notation in future, something you’ve failed dismally, time and again, to do here so far.

 

One more thing you need to understand is that the universe began at the start of the Planck Epoch but that Epoch ended some time before inflation began.  You still keep talking as if inflation was the first thing that happened in this universe but the consensus view among physicists is that that is not true.  Again these discussions would probably go better if you understood your errors here and the consensus view among physicists Eclipse.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing Russell , sorry that it plagues you. I understand fully the subject which we are discussing , and I'm pretty sure you do too at such a time in our discourse.

No , "we are nor getting anywhere " nor will we as long as you invent new ways to avoid a very simple question , which you know you can not answer. For to answer you would have to admit that your main line of argument is in error . Now you want to play with terms , teems that I had to illuminate you on . I'll play your childish game to a degree , which will put you in an inescapable position of answering my original question. 10- 27 seconds , is obviously a reference to a very short segment of time less than a second. Ergo 10- 47 seconds is a shorter period of time than 10- 27 seconds , as the more 0 's you add the smaller the segment of time.

So with that in mind Russell , you now know what a Planck segment of time is ? Don't you ? Do you know the standard Planck used to determine what that term represents ? Seems to me you don't , but overall that is irrelevant to THE question we are arguing.

Inflation + 3 Planck segments of time .Contemplate the meaning of that sentence Russell . Got it ? 3 Planck seconds AFTER Inflation started. Get That Russell ? All known Laws of Physics be they Quantum or Classical in the Standard Model , all break down looking back [ calculating back , postulating back ] Nothing is known about the Physical Laws , the state of Matter or Energy , BEFORE that point.

 

So now that you have been educated , led by the hand , had a picture drawn for you , and explained in the simplest possible terms , tell me Russell , what does the leading Edge of Science , and of course YOU , know about the Universe before that point ?

 

If you're an honest man , and an informed basic study, or even a hobbyist in the subject of Theoretical Physics , Cosmology and Cosmogony , then your answer will be "we know nothing " we can only speculate and/or use conjecture . If you answer , that something is known before that period of time After the Inflation , then by all means enlighten me , and the rest of the Scientific World .

Now whether I call it 3 Planck seconds or segments , or 10-27 ,10 -47 , or you call it the Planck Epoch , is irrelevant , and that is because anyone of those expressions , is an estimate of , and an expression of an extremely short period of time AFTER the Inflation Started . So save yourself time , and do not come back with another bucket of steam , or another game of wordplay to weasel out of answering that basic question .

 

I'm sure Hawking , Carroll , Thorn , Campbell , Fermi , all the leading theoretical physicists and cosmologists would be eager to hear your answer .

 

BTW , you do know that even this period of time is not totally agreed upon by all theoretical Physicists , as they have based their calculations on presently accepted cosmological constants and understanding of the Standard Model .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again Eclipse

 

You say you understand this fully then suggest that you can call the end of the Planck Epoch 10-27 or 10-47 or whatever which belies any real understanding of the subject.  It has a very specific timing which anyone who did actually understand this subject would know.  I have an idea from what you’ve said what the invented term you are using “Planck Segment” means.  As I pointed out no physicists use it so it doesn’t help this discussion much.  The standard terms are out there if you care to read a little about this subject, they are the likes of 10-43 of a second which I’ve been using since the beginning here so you’re not helping your case for knowledge much when you don’t display an understanding of standard terminology.

 

You sound like you are starting to grasp the standard mathematical representations I’ve been using here.  Yes 10-47 of a second is smaller than 10-27 of a second but do you realize how much smaller because that’s critical here?  As I’ve tried to explain before there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 10-47’s in 1 x 10-27.  To point out that one is smaller than the other is a bit of an understatement but those time periods are critical as I tried to point out to you in that standard logarithmic view of the origins of the universe that I presented here and that you ridiculed here.

 

I assume you’re term “Planck Segment” refers to Planck Time (tp).  That’s the time it takes light in a vacuum to travel 1 Planck Length or approximately 5.39x10-44 of a second or rounded off as I have been all along here 10-43 of a second.  See what I mean about standard terms here Eclipse.  They make all the difference.

 

Think back to the timeline I gave you here earlier, remember the logarithmic one you didn’t like, the standard one that physicists use when discussing this stuff, that one.  Remember that the moment of initiation, the big bang, happened at time 0.  Then for the next 10-43 of a second we can’t know what was happening.  That’s the Planck Epoch.  Then at around 10-36 of a second or 10000000 times the length of the Planck Epoch inflation started and those vacuum fluctuations fuelled the start of our universe.  The time you are nominating from the start of this is the start of inflation which was at 10-36 of a second plus 3 Planck Segments.  If we assume that Planck Segments are Planck Seconds then that time is 10-36 + 0.0000000003% (3 Planck Seconds) of the age of the universe at that moment.  As I said that moment has no meaning, it’s basically the moment of the start of inflation.  Later, at around 10-34 of a second the earliest of our currently detectable evidence was generated, the pressure and gravity waves within the universe as it inflated, then at around 10-33 of a second inflation ceased.

 

As you can see there’s plenty that’s understood at least in vague terms before the moment you have been pointing to all along here, the moment at which we simply can’t go further is 0.000000001% of that time so you’re a long way off.  At least if you applied your three Planck Segments to the very beginning of the universe you’d be in the right order of magnitude to mean something,  our knowledge ends at one Planck Second after the beginning but three is pretty close.  You, however, nominated that your time started at the beginning of inflation plus a factor which was a long long time after that.

 

Yes I have said since day one that we know nothing before a specific point, that point is the end of the Planck Epoch at 10-43 of a second.  I’ve been saying that for ages but you keep saying 3 times that long after the start of inflation which happened 10000000 times that long later so you’re nominating 10000003, approximately, as the moment our knowledge ends and in that claim you are disagreeing with the best in this field.  Maybe you are under the misapprehension that inflation was the very first thing that happened in this universe, a little reading should solve that misunderstanding Eclipse.

 

So I don’t need to enlighten the rest of the scientific world just one person it seems, the one person who keeps misstating what science says about all of this, you Eclipse.

 

Remember I don’t call it the Planck Epoch, the scientists do, I don’t call it 10-27 of a second or 10-47 of a second I point out that it has been calculated to 10-43 of a second by those same scientists, that’s what I said when we started this discussion and I still say it and they still say it and you keep confusing terms and numbers left right and center and ranting as if you actually understand some of this, if you do it ain’t much from what you’ve said here.  So no it’s not irrelevant what you call it, 10-27, 10-47 etc those numbers have very specific, scientifically calculated meanings and until you understand them you will never grasp your errors here.
 

I doubt Hawking would be interested in what I’ve just explained to you, he organized a workshop in 1982 which discussed in depth the details I’ve been explaining to you.  I’m sure he has better things to do with his time that listen to me preaching to the choir.

 

Yes I understand that this period of time is not agreed upon by all physacists.  What with Stephens own Open Inflation model differing from the more conventional single bubble inflation models etc yes there are still things to be sorted out.  What I have presented is the majority view on this and certainly not necessarily the final view.


Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Blather eh Russell  ?  Just can't bring yourself to answer a simple question . I said Scientists are not in agreement , so whether it be 1 or 3 plank seconds after Inflation is basically irrelevant as to the question I asked , and you know it .  So pick whichever you favor 1 or 3 Planck seconds after inflation started . What is known before that ?

 And yes Hawking, et al, would be extremely interested in what the conditions of the Universe were before that , because no one knows , neither do you , although for some strange reason , you can not bring yourself to saying it .

 

You are right about one thing though , Hawking would not be interested in what you have just expectorated to me , because it is nothing less than pure unadulterated B.S. 

 

 

You haven't presented  Stephen's or ANYONE'S view , because there are no views , aside from speculation , regarding the conditions existing in the Universe before 3 [ or if you prefer 1  ] Planck seconds After Inflation started .

 

 Nice dance Russell , you sound just like Andalusi , but with a different motive . You are tripping over your own irrelevant explanations .

 

 Shall we try it one more time Russell ?

 

 

 What does Science [ or you ] know about the conditions of the Universe prior to 3 [ or 1 ] Planck seconds after inflation ? 

 

Just so you may know Russell ,  1 Planck time is 10  - 43  seconds. It is a basic time unit and it also describes distance  1 Planck length , a basic distance measurement . At the start of Inflation , it is theorized that the Universe was 1 Planck length in diameter .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

No I can answer a simple question but first you have to ask one.  I’ve stated from the start of this that the limit to our knowledge is the end of the Planck Epoch but that’s not “3 Planck Segments after the inflation started” which is the time you keep throwing up.  It’s also not 10-27 of a second or 10-47 or a second or any of the other times you’ve put on it.  Still that’s the most common claim you have made so let’s look at it in detail.

 

Physicists say that the end of the Planck Epoch or 10-43 of a second is the limit and I agree.  You on the other hand say that it’s “3 Planck Segments after the inflation started”.  Haven’t I explained all of this to you already, I can see you can’t get it or won’t admit it but you are wrong and have been since the start.  Inflation started at around 10-36 of a second after the start of the universe or 10000000 Planck Seconds after the start of the universe.  Now you want to add three more Planck Segements (probably Planck Seconds) to that giving us 10000003.  How much difference does that 3 make given the uncertainty involved in the 10000000 in the first place.  Do you see yet how foolish your position is?  How wrong?  You are off by about 10-36 of a second or 8 orders of magnitude.  I’d pay 3 Planck Segments after the start of the universe, that’s close, not the figure given for very good reasons but close but you’re figure is off by about 10000000 Planck Seconds so you are and always have been wrong.

 

Yes 10-43 is a smaller time than 10-27 but you need to work out how much smaller to understand your error here.  Look it up and get back to us Eclipse.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well , Russell , youstill haven't answered , I'll take that as a NO , you don't know what the condition of the Universe was before 1 or 3 plank second , 10-43  , or 10-27 seconds after the Inflation . No need to feel alone , the whole body of Science doesn't know either .

 BTW Russell Inflation WAS the Start of the Universe [ if the Standard Model is correct ] . And science according to known physical Laws can only calculate back to a point AFTER the Start . Now you can play with those figures all you want , and try to bend their meaning all you want . But you can not avoid the fact , that there is no theory existent in Science that can explain or describe the conditions in the Universe before that short period after Inflation started . And as I explained to you before there is disagreement among scientists whether physical laws breakdown at 1 or 3 planck seconds , therefore the planck epoch is subject to the same variance in opinion . So 10-43 , 10 -27 , or as stated in some scientific papers 10-44 seconds are all arbitrary , but no matter which you lean towards , nothing is known before that , and they all describe periods of time AFTER Inflation started . So continue with your word games , it doesn't change a thing , except to give you another excuse to avoid an answer .

 

 You may continue  tripping over your tongue with your mental masturbation , but you can't change facts .

 

Keep dancing Russell .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

And here we see the problem with your position, I put my peg in the sand at the start of this and said the limit to our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch at 10-43 of a second.   Yes there is a limit to our knowledge, no one knows or can know what happened before that with our current understanding of quantum physics, that’s been my position from the start.  The problem arises when you ask about other undefined or variable times as I’ve been explaining.

 

You asked about “3 planck segments after the start of inflation” and according to the standard view inflation started at 10-36 of a second after the beginning of the universe, don’t believe me fine, look it up, that is the standard view.  Inflation wasn’t the first event it was 10-36 of a second after the first event.  That means that the time you are asking about is long after the position that science places the absolute limit to our knowledge so I pointed out that you were wrong.  Here’s a picture which I’ve presented before that graphs the events in the early universe in a logarithmic timescale.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29#/media/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg

 

You’ve also asked about 10-47 of a sconed which is a time so short that it can have no meaning, it’s imaginary, it’s from Eclipses head in other words.  Remember these numbers have meanings, you can’t just throw them around as if they are interchangeable.  It’s not even as bad as if these numbers were mile markers, you aren’t just 20 miles off on these guesses, 10-27 of a second is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as big as 10-47 of a second.

 

You recently suggested that the limit was 10-27 of a second which is even more wrong that “3 Planck Segments after the start of inflation”.  You can’t even agree with yourself what time you are talking about here so how can you complain that I won’t answer the question, which question 10-27, 10-47, three planck segments after 10-36, which one Eclipse?

 

In your last post you said “you don't know what the condition of the Universe was before 1 or 3 plank second , 10-43  , or 10-27 seconds after the Inflation” as if those three times are the same, you see the problem I hope.  Even today you can’t work out what time you mean for the limit yet you accuse me of ignorance because I won’t agree with your statements!!  You can’t point at multiple times over 16 orders of magnitude and ask what we know about things before that as if they are the same thing then complain that I won’t answer your question.  You haven’t yet asked a coherent question.

 

Like I said look up the maths here, find out what those notations mean, how many 10-43’s of a second would fit into 10-36 of a second then see how wrong you are when you suggest that the limit to our knowledge is both of those times.

 

Please understand until you grasp the maths here you’ll keep making these blunders and this discussion won’t go anywhere.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion has already hit a brick wall Russell . And that is your confusion of terms , weak knowledge of the subject matter , and inability to recognize [ or more likely acknowledge ] you are engaging in words games . And all the time you can not answer that simple question , which has become rhetorical at this point .

 Shall I make even more simple for You ?  Dumb it down to such a degree using your own confused understanding ?

 

 Ok,  tell me what you or science knows regarding conditions in the Universe Before the Planck Epoch . Now that covers the various estimations by Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologists [  as I said , and that you know } are not in total agreement with, and it covers any of your confused estimates or definitions of what that point in time corresponds to , before which , physical laws break down and absolutely nothing is known .

 

I am curious to see what your next evasive measure will be ....it should be interesting .

 

OR without adding any more of your confused blather , simply tell me at what point do all known physical laws breakdown , and there is absolutely nothing known regarding the initial mechanism which started inflation . Otherwise put , how far back can physicists extrapolate with their calculation until all physics breaks down ?

 

 Remember , the Start of inflation  is the beginning , it is O time and O distance . So , how close can Science get in calculating or describing condition existing in the Universe  to that point ?  

 

I am not attempting to prove you right or wrong , but merely to pin you down to an intelligent answer . Are you capable of giving one ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Surely you are aware that the Planck Epoch spans the first 10-43 of a second of this universe. Time zero is the start of it and time 10-43 of a second is the end of it.  Asking what’s before it is like asking what’s north of the North Pole.  The question has no meaning within this universe and only speculation beyond that.  As I stated in virtually my first post to this thread we can know nothing because physical laws break down, given our current understanding of quantum physics, before the end of the Planck Epoch or 10-43 of a second after the start of the universe.  Given there is no such thing as a time before the Planck Epoch your question is meaningless Eclipse.

 

No, please look at that picture, the start of the universe is time zero but the start of inflation is currently calculated to be 10-36 of a second after that.  That confusion alone has caused much of your problems in this thread.  If inflation were the first thing then the Planck Epoch would start at T-10-36 of a second before the start of the universe.  Is anyone silly enough to believe that?

 

For intelligent answers that have not changed one iota please see my first post to this conversation.  In it you’ll find that I stated that the limit to our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch, that’s at 10-43 of a second and that’s 10-36 of a second before Inflation started according to the consensus view of the best minds in the business none of whom use the terminology Planck Segments, that seems to be your invention Eclipse.   As I say understanding standard terminology and some simple maths would help you a lot here.  Have you looked up yet how many 10-43’s fit into 10-27?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So , Russell , then you agree. Nothing is known before 1 or 3 planck segments of time after Inflation. Now that wasn't hard was it ?

 

Oh , and BTW , the difference between 10-43 and 10-27 seconds , is and was irrelevant to the heart of the discussion. And that was Science can only extrapolate back to a very small increment of time after the Start of Inflation.

 

As I explained to you countless times , that is an ambiguous estimation ,to which there is disagreement among physicists , and there always has been, given that Cosmological constants have been accurate only to a degree of + or - about 8-10 % . They have refined that since then , but even a margin of 2 % obviously can change estimates to a relatively large degree when discussing time increments that are involving trillionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

 

In addition , it is theory and not necessarily empirical data , with additional caveats all along the way , like an incomplete theory of gravity , no explanation of why there is more matter than anti-matter , no explanation of why the Universe is expanding faster than calculated in the Standard Model , or in Quantum Theory.

 

That's why I criticized one your " Russell Originals " on the Origin of the Universe. You expiated something like " fluctuations in a zero entropy vacuum in De Sitter space." [ paraphrased] I simply said that it was and will remain INSCRUTABLE. Conjecture and Speculation , that's all you or science have ,and all you will ever have , because the Universe can not be rolled back to find how it started. Even Sean Carroll knows that.

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I get the distinct feeling you didn’t read what I wrote last time.  Did you?  I stated at the start of this that the limit to our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch which ended 10-36 of a second before inflation started, you on the other hand keep insisting, even in this last post, that the limit is some time after inflation started, a time which is clearly wrong.

 

No the difference between 10-43 of a second and 10-27 of a second is not irrelevant; one is the correct answer as best science knows it, and one is not.   I agree that science can’t know anything before a very short period of time after the start of the universe, I said that in virtually my first post on this question, but the difference between those two numbers is critical, it’s a huge difference.  There are 10,000,000,000,000,000 10-43’s in 10-27 so you’re off by a huge margin when you claimed the limit was 10-27.   Science is all about exact figures and specific information not vague guesses.  If all you were claiming was that somewhere back there we can’t know anything then why didn’t you just say that rather than putting up a huge range of incorrect figures then complaining when I didn’t agree to all of them.

 

And no it is not an ambiguous estimation, the figure for the Planck Epoch has significance for quantum physics today and it is calculated to 6 decimal places which hardly makes is an estimate.

 

I love the fact that you talk about a 2% variation as if it helps your case here given that the latest figure you gave was off by 100,000,000,000,000%.

 

As for rolling it back that was never needed though it would be nice, because this sort of science is forensic in nature.  Like working out details of Egyptian society when we can go and have a look we rely on evidence we find today to guide us and that evidence leads to a majority view which I have been trying to explain to you.  Sure one day something may come along that will upset it and a new picture will emerge, it’s happened in the past let’s face it, but until that happens we should focus on the best of our current understanding and the consensus view among scientists or we should point out if we are pushing a fringe view.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , this discussion originally got started when you propagated the notion that Science had viable theories , regarding probability that the Universe just popped up from nothing . What was it ? A zero entropy vacuum , and through all these posts , and there have been many, you denied a FACT that I had countered your notion with . And that was that Science had nothing but conjecture and speculation of what conditions existed A) to cause Inflation and B )What conditions existed in the short span of time which you have been obsessing on and confusing yourself on, which I had originally stated at about 1 -3 Planck seconds . So now after FINALLY admitting , that Science IN FACT does not know anything as to the conditions of the Universe in the time frame discussed nor anything before. Now you say " someday " ? You're a funny guy Russell .

Those are the FACTS Russell . It is not a matter of consensus or opinion . There is no "current understanding " , and that is because , as I originally stated ,there is no information .

You protracted this discussion , based on your opinion ,and attempted to present it as something more than speculation and conjecture ,and wasted countless posts defending that position .

2 % , or 8- 10 % does not "help my case " because it is irrelevant , in that it simply shows that whether you call it 1- 3 Planck Seconds or 10- 43 , 10- 36 , it simply has no bearing on the debate we are engaged in . The only reason I stated those percentages of error, is because the differing opinions of leading physicists regarding the exactitude of cosmological constants and their parameters , and discrepancies between predictions and observations of the Standard Model , make any exact estimate of those time increments ambiguous.

 No one has a clue as to the condition of the Universe which brought about the Inflation ,nor the condition in that before or after inflation started, NOTHING .

This was never a matter of " my case " or your case , nor of our opinions , it was strictly a matter of you accepting or rejecting scientific FACT . There is no theory in existence [ and you can check that ] regarding what was before the time period in question . In addition , no one is sure exactly when the four forces in nature separated , classical and quantum physics simply don't work . In fact nothing is sure all the way up to when it is estimated  /energy /matter first cooled enough to condense  at  0 + 380,000 years.

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

True enough I did point out that there is a theory with a great deal of support in current knowledge that could describe how the universe got started, nothing has changed there, the theory still exists, it is still valid against all the evidence we have and it definitely can’t be tested or proven at this stage because of the limit to our knowledge of this universe before the end of the Planck Epoch.  Sorry none of that is contradictory.  What is contradictory is that the limit to our knowledge is 10-47 of a second and 10-27 of a second and three Planck Segments after the start of inflation( which his at 10-36 of a second) when the actual figure as I stated a very long time ago was the end of the Planck Epoch at 10-43 of a second.  That is the definition of a contradiction when you can’t even put your finger on a single point and say “That’s it” but rather range around over 10 orders of magnitude in your guesses.

 

You’re wrong of course that there is no information, you have still never faced up to the fact that whatever happened there must be something that could produce a universe that looks like this one, that gives us a balance of matter and energy in specific quantities etc.  That’s not nothing!  As for what happened in there to produce that we can’t see evidence for it directly because of that limit so we will probably always be restricted from knowing what exactly happened in that era.

 

Yes I gathered a while ago that you don’t get maths, 10-47 of a second and 10-27 of a second are not just both small fragments of time, they’re precise and specific measures of time.  Both are wrong in opposite directions when looking for the limit to our knowledge even though you throw them out there without understanding that.  The limit is based in a testable feature of quantum physics, a feature that can be tested now, we don’t have to go back to the beginning of the universe for this because that limit still applies in quantum physics.

 

Nothing is ever certain in science but we have a consensus of opinion, not universally supported, among scientists that the picture I have been explaining since the beginning is probably correct.  The view you have expressed is self-contradictory which obviously invalidates it. There is strong experimental evidence of the conditions required to separate the electromagnetic and Weak Nuclear forces so we’ve made progress even here and there is evidence to support the current views for the other forces but no experimental or direct observational evidence for the others.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still stuck on the triilionths of a second Russell ?  A diversion from the whole purpose of our overly long discussion . Yes of course there's a difference between 10 - 47 and 10 - 27 seconds . But that difference is irrelevant .  10 with 27 zeros behind it is almost twice as long as 10 with 47 zeros , but we are talking about parts of a second , Planck seconds . And no matter which is correct [ as I stated estimations vary ] and taking into consideration , Hubble's Constant has just recently been refined to a margin of error of about 2.9%  from a known error of between 5-9 %.

 

  I guess you just can't see how that would affect calculations regarding the Planck Epoch ,which makes the difference  between the two figures not as significant as you make them out to be . Nonetheless it does not change the FACT, that nothing is known beyond whichever period you, or me, or scientists decide upon. And you know that , yet you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to face that fact  . Slowly bit by bit you have been made to accept that fact , and you have  indicated that within your last three posts .

 

       You made a statement in the above reply -  " so we will probably always be restricted from knowing exactly happened in that area "   and then you go on to state  " we have a consensus of *OPINION* , not universally supported among scientists that the picture I have been explaining since the beginning is PROBABLY  correct " .     Really ? 

  

SERIOUSLY RUSSELL  !  Have you ever tried listening to yourself ?    What YOU have said ? Really ?  Who are you kidding Russell ? What you have done, is a slow back peddle mixed with a long dance of unnecessary and vague words , to the point I was making from the very start .   

 

You have just said it . Reluctantly no doubt and in three or four telling statements separated by three or for replies !  And your first paragraph in the above reply is nothing but pure B.S.  There is no evidence , that's why there is no testability , because neither Quantum nor Classical Physics can be applied , they both breakdown.

 

 As I stated to you countless times ,  all science has is speculation and conjecture , no one is sure or even close to being sure how the forces separated , only that they did separate , NOT HOW OR WHY . There is no information Russell , and you should have known that ,but you don't , you are a yes- no -yes , type of guy . You're whole bit about 10- 43 and 10- 27 is nothing but a red herring produced on your part to get around the heart of the argument , and sidestep it with a smokescreen. 

 

If I am wrong then Science is wrong regarding the variances of those time periods , and that is because there is disagreement ,and add to that , the observation that the galaxies are flying away from each other faster than the Standard Model predicts , and there is no explanation of why the galaxies are holding stars from flying out into space . So they have hypothesized Dark Matter ,and Dark Energy . And that is more conjecture because we only have a limited understanding of Gravity .We have no idea of how or why it separated from the other three forces of nature , which simply accentuates the point I was making .

 

  So how can you possibly make the statements that you made in the above reply  by saying there is a consensus  ?  Evidence ? That's NONSENSE  Russell .

 

We may " someday " { as you put it } learn how the Universe works , but we will never know how it got started .  As I said both Hawking and Carroll have admitted as much .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

But that difference is irrelevant .  10 with 27 zeros behind it is almost twice as long as 10 with 47 zeros , but we are talking about parts of a second , Planck seconds . - Eclipse

 

Yes I understand that you failed maths in a big way, you’ve proven that time and again here. 10-27 isn’t almost twice as long as 10-47 unless you’re just talking about the space it takes to write it down, it’s 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as long.  You aren’t talking about being off by a few percent but 10,000,000,000,000,000%.   It is a big deal if you can’t grasp be basics Eclipse.  Remember I suggested that you look this stuff up to try to work out just how wrong you are?  Did you try and fail or did you just skip that bit?  It was really really important to this discussion.

 

Hubble's Constant has just recently been refined to a margin of error of about 2.9%  from a known error of between 5-9 %.  - Eclipse.

 

Did you really just compare a change in the accuracy of our knowledge of the Hubble Constant by 6% to you being 10,000,000,000,000,000% wrong in your statements as if that makes it all OK?  Really?

 

You’ll have to show me where any main stream scientists suggests that the figure should be 10-27 of a second or that it should be 10-36 of a second for that matter.  Both figures are very wrong but you apparently don’t realize just how wrong.

 

“Can I borrow $1010 it’s only twice as much as $10 and I’ll give you $100 so it’s all good?”

 

Didn’t I already say that I could accept 3 Planck Seconds as being pretty close but you didn’t say that did you, you said “3 Planck Segments after the start of inflation” which if you look back or hit the web you’ll see is at 10-36 of a second plus those segments so significantly wrong.  And that’s the real issue here, you’ve been giving incorrect figures over a range of 20 orders of magnitude throughout this discussion.  Remember I gave the correct figure as it is currently known at the very start of this when told you the limit was the end of the Planck Epoch.  That’s never changed throughout this discussion unlike your position which has varied by 10000000000000000000 times.

 

It’s an interesting notion that I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion that I stated up front in this discussion ages ago?  How does that work.  I said at the beginning of the that the limit to our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch and I’ve stuck to that since, you’ve suggested that it is just after 10-36 of a second, 10-47 of a second, 10-27 of a second among others, never the right figure you’ll notice it was me who posted that right at the beginning of this and repeatedly since.  Sure I understand that there’s some wiggle room as these figures are not known exactly but the errors you have repeatedly made here are more than that.  No scientists would subscribe to figures spanning 20 orders of magnitude for this.

 

Yes really, it’s possible to have a consensus opinion that can never be proven, why is that a problem to you?  All the evidence we have is and probably always will remain insufficient to prove it but science never proves things it just proposes theories that are potentially disproved by the evidence and this idea has not been.  Maybe it will be one day.

 

I get the feeling that you really believe that 10-27 is just twice 10-47 of a second and that just after 10-36 of a second is the same as 10-43 of a second but a little maths would debase you of these misconceptions and maybe you’d start to see just how wrong you’ve been since the start of this.  But are you up for the challenge, to learn a little maths and see what those numbers actually mean?  Can you do it Eclipse?

 

If there is no evidence then what is the universe we see around us?  The balance of energy and matter it contains?  Do you really believe that what came before could be any old thing regardless of the fact that it had to be able to lead to this?  Surely you see that what came before, even if we can’t compute it or observe it directly in any way, must have been something that could have lead to this?  Do you see that?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to learn math Russell , the Fact remains as you continue to defend an indefensible point , there is no evidence as to how the Universe got started . PERIOD . I challenged you to bring it forth if you know anything that science does not . We know  what the net result is - the Universe we observe .

 I don't believe any old thing that could have come before it , I , like science has no idea whatsoever has come before it .

 

So what are you talking about Russell ? I don't think you know . Yes , it is possible to have "a consensus of opinion " , everyone has opinion , but that's all it is , just opinion . There is no evidence , no empirical data , nothing .  Even the scientists qualify what they hypothesize by saying " this is what we think happened but we can not be sure , since all physical laws breakdown at a certain point .

 

Your obsession with the increment of time is meaningless , for if I say there is nothing known before 10 -47 seconds , or if I say there is nothing known before 10 -27 seconds , then please explain what that means in regards to knowing what started the Universe . You can't ,because it is basically meaningless , just like any reference to a " singularity which espouse it . A singularity is merely a term ,a metaphor , for a condition Science claims is an unimaginably condensed and small diameter object that contained all the matter we observe in the Universe ,which from unknown origin , expanded for unknown reasons - we have no physical laws to explain or predict such a thing , not to mention any information that that may in fact have been the way the Universe got started .

 

 What we see around us is only the result , nor the mechanism or condition that caused it , for that we have only speculation .If you are of the opinion there is anything else that we have gleaned , then YOU ARE WRONG , as I think the leading edge of science knows a bit more about that , than do you . Nor does anyone know how the Four forces of nature separated , why one is weak and one is strong .

 You are not up to date on the subject Russell , or you have been the victim of someone's opinion , and opinions on this subject are a dime a dozen , unfortunately there is no evidence , and as I stated before , the FACT that as we speak there is no theory in existence on the Origin of the Universe .

  What you have convinced yourself of is no different than speculations  like Multi-Verse , 2D Hologram ,String Theory etc . All unproven , all speculation . Although you attempt to pass it off as fact , or as you put it " probably correct by consensus " .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

No I guess you don’t need to learn maths, ignorance seems to fit you quite well.  Given that ignorance you do need to stop discussing these time intervals as if you understand what they mean of course but I doubt you’ll do that.

 

We know  what the net result is - the Universe we observe . - Eclipse

 

Wasn’t that my point?  We know how quantum physics behaves in great detail in the universe and to a very high degree of accuracy, we see around us every day and we have the evidence of the universe we observe, it’s matter and energy balance etc all of which must have been able to appear from whatever preceded it.  That’s a constraint on what came before; it must be capable of producing this.  You claim we have no evidence then point to the evidence.  Interesting position!

 

I believe you are correct when you say you have no idea what so ever what came before, I suspect that the leading scientists do, maybe they are wrong but they do have ideas of what may have come before as I’ve explained.  Do they know it?  No.  Do we know that gravity will make you fall if you step off your roof?  No.  We strongly suspect it but we don’t know it.  That’s not how science works.  Science is all about degrees of certainty.  The degree of certainty that would be placed on the ideas of what started this universe would be low but not zero.  That’s how it is whether you like it or not Eclipse.

 

When scientists point out that they can’t test a chain of causality beyond a certain point, that magic 10-43 of a second figure that you don’t understand, they are not saying that they can’t apply the maths of quantum physics to that period rather they are saying that it’s impossible to calculate mathematically beyond that point because the rules of quantum physics don’t allow it.  The rules of quantum physics still apply. It’s like a one way encryption key, you can only pass data one way through it.  That doesn’t mean the maths doesn’t hold true beyond that point or that the data does not exist beyond that point.

 

My “Obsession” with maths, with those figures, is not meaningless, it is a minor point that displays your ignorance here but that’s all it is I guess, an object lesson in ignorance.   The figure is known and I named it at the beginning of this and have never changed that position while you show your ignorance by continually throwing out guesses over 20 orders of magnitude.  If one end of that range were 1 the other end would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000.  You can’t really be taken seriously if you can’t see the difference between those two numbers.  Numbers are what these questions are all about.  Remember the rules of quantum physics that I’ve been talking about, they are mathematical rules.  Numbers are important, maths is important here.

 

The condensed state of matter you talk about starting the universe is not the current best theory for the creation of this universe.  The current consensus suggests that the universe started with energy alone in the form of curved space time.  During inflation quantum fluctuations were not capable of recombining so rather than each piece of the borrowed vacuum energy annihilating with the rest they moved apart at greater than the speed of light carried along with the universe around them.  That’s what inflation is all about remember, so they were forced to become real matter and energy rather than the ghostly energy seen in the casimir experiments.  No matter filled singularity existed in this scenario just a curved space time created as I have described.  Remember that this idea applies long after that limit you have been guessing at Eclipse, it started at 10-36 of a second or 10000000 times the length of the Planck Epoch after the start of this universe.  You don’t have to like it and it’s certainly not the only idea out there for what created this universe but it is by far the most commonly accepted one among those who really understand this stuff and all that maths that you don’t think is important works in this scenario and it can only produce a balanced, zero energy, universe just like the one we see around us.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your obsession with math is nothing more than obfuscation of the issue . I've explained why there is a variance in estimates , and  how they would change calculations . If Cosmological constants are off , then estimates of time increments are off .But all that you have either ignored , or it surpasses your understanding of what those things mean .

 

 

 Again you foist up hypotheses and no facts . Just opinion . You know as well as I that , there is no evidence, to know whether there was condensed energy or what form , there is no information . The rest of your scenario is babble .  Curved space time ? Really Russell ?   That is speculation and you know it . Science has no idea of such a condition . You can quote "quantum rules " all you like , they are irrelevant, when you already know [ or maybe you don't ] Theoretical Physicists have long ago stated  that , Quantum and Classical physics breakdown at such a point in the time increments mentioned , so stop with your red herring on math and 10- 36 , it's just part of your on going obfuscation of the heart of this argument .

 

 

   I suggest you pick up a book on the Planck Epoch and Cosmology , so you may be able to determine the difference between what you think , and what is actually known , and between what science hypothesizes and what science actually knows . You seem to have confused the line between the two . I'll give you the benefit of the doubt , in saying that you have not read up enough on the subject , or you have, and failed to understand what you were reading , otherwise you are simply engaging in cognitive dissonance .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

So it’s an obsession to try to understand what exactly is going on in the language of science that works out what is going on.  You really have a skewed view of this.  What can you know of quantum physics without maths.  Richard Feynman explained that maths was the only way you could understand it, your common sense simply could not grasp what’s going on, only through the maths could you ever hope to grasp it.  But hey throw out the maths and deal with what’s left hey Eclipse.

 

Now back to reality.  You can’t just ignore the maths, you can’t claim that, since 10-47 of a second and 10-27 of a second are both small increments of time that they are basically interchangeable.  Now think back and remember that you pointed out that our knowledge of one fact of nature was improved from say 9% to 2.9%, that makes sense, we are always learning but you present figures that are incorrect by 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% and defend it by saying that they are all small numbers.  Sorry if you can’t even get within the ball park in your guesses you’d be better to hang up your hat on this one Eclipse.

 

By the way I agree there are variances in estimates, the length of the Planck Epoch varies by .001% for example, but that’s hardly comparable to your errors of 20 orders of magnitude none of the figures from science varies by anywhere near that much.  That’s an Eclipsian error.   A scientist who was off by that much would just say, “I don’t know”.

 

Hypotheses yes, that is what these explanations of the beginning of the universe are as I have said over and over again in the past but as for no facts that is simply wrong.  Look around, there are your facts.  Whatever is back there must be capable of producing this universe. This universe has parameters so it must be able to produce a universe with those same parameters.  Yes there is evidence all around us even if you can’t see it.

 

“The rest of your scenario is babble .  Curved space time ?” - Eclipse

 

You may remember a rather famous scientist, Einstein was his name, who explained that gravity was curvatures in space time. He wrapped all of that up in a whole lot of maths and, time and again since then, his ideas have been proven to be correct but if you can’t handle curved space time that’s fine.  Remember what I said about maths.  If you don’t get it you can’t possibly get what science is learning here.

 

That’s enough of that I think, until you can get the maths you simply can’t understand any of this stuff in any significant way.  Sure classical physics breaks down in the sort of conditions that existed in the very early universe but quantum physics defined the Planck Epoch and that limit is well accepted even if you don’t understand why.  Remember those numbers I keep going on about and that Maths I keep suggesting you learn. That explains why the Planck Epoch is a limit and it explains what sort of limit it is.  It’s fascinating to study this but you really do have to get into some maths to do it Eclipse.  As I’ve said before, are you capable?  Willing? To put in the effort.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , you obviously miss the point , and display no understanding .You constant reference to "the maths "  , does your argument no good , as it is not a matter of " the maths " when it comes to the speculation and conjecture of Scientists , being mistaken by novices like yourself to be valid scientific probabilities .

 

You see , all the math in the world can not illuminate what is simply out of any human purview , especially when it comes to the Origin of the Universe .

 

 It is obvious to me that you  have gotten yourself involved in blog discussions, then jump to resources to glean what you think you need to make a valid point ,  rather than someone who has been at least, studying the subject in depth , and that with information gleaned from actually picking up and reading many books on the  several disciplines involved in this subject over a period of may years .

 When you allude to the notion that science knows - "curved space time  " or condensation of matter and/or energy  and it's likely composition , or the separation of the Four forces , which separated first [ or last ]  , you are demonstrating to me , that there is a rather large gap in your understanding  of what scientists actually know , and what science has made speculation on .

 

This is especially evident in your last few posts . There is no consensus on these issues that you mention . Simply because e a scientist presents a paper , does not a theory make / and no , any hypothesis is not necessarily a valid one .

 

 You can not tout such terms as " curved space time " , when Time itself has not yet been understood , and space itself is not yet fully defined nor is gravity understood . Yet you expound a probability there is actually no evidence of any kind , indicating your speculation . And you say I "don't understand the maths " ?  That's B.S. Russell and you know .  You obssess on this point because you know you are in error and there's no way around it, except to obfuscate the argument by alluding to an understanding of "the maths ' . That is simply not true Russell .And that is because you have not viewed the Big Picture when it comes to the Origin of the Universe .

 

 Sure , the math is important , but only where it can be applied . To argue over 10- 36 or 10 - 47 , which are estimations by several scientists , and they vary for the very reason that ,there are numerous  theories , and they are indeed speculations like  2D Holograms , Multiverse ,Infinite Multiverse , and String Theory . Were they not reached by someone's " Maths " ??

 

 Science estimates that matter started to condense ,to the point of gases cooling to form stars and galaxies at approx. 0 + 380,000 years . Do you believe that as hard Fact ? Math got them there , but that math is based on assumption , and that assumption is that the Standard Model is correct , and that based on Hubble Constant , Uncertainty Principle  ,and other givens called cosmological constants . So if there has been a recognized margin of error of between 5-9% recently refined to 2.9 % , what does that say about mathematical calculations  ?  The Math is not pulled out of hat Russell , the Math is based on Observation , Physics , Volume ,Temperatures ,measurements , a veritable plethora of parameters . The math is calculated to match what is seen and observed and measured , then using those formulas that describe such , the Math is then extrapolated to make predictions over time or otherwise put , the behavior of elements both Macro and Quantum over time. So your obsession of using the "maths " to exploit a difference in the segments of  trillionths of a second , no matter the exponent , and pin either to being exacting , is on its face ludicrous . And even more so when there simply is no information regarding those times .

 

 Go read some books on the subject Russell , I think you have ingested too much Neil De Grasse and Carl Sagan . They simplify the subject to the point of ignoring the many ,many uncertainties , and purport them as viable theories to be accepted by the General Public , when in reality the Truth is , that WE JUST DON'T KNOW regarding the Origin of the Universe .

 

 Obviously Russell you are having trouble dealing with and accepting that . Oh Well .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×