Islamic Forum

The Meaning Of Life

Recommended Posts

Hi Eclipse

OK now we have something concrete from you that we can start to work on.

* A - - - * B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - -* C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *P

First a few things to get us started:-

• Can you mark on your diagram the point at which the Big Bang occurred?
• Can you also mark on it the end of the Planck Epoch?
• Can you label this chart in seconds so we have definitive times to work with here?
• You seem to be using planck segments and Planck seconds interchangeably, was that your intention?

Russell

Share on other sites

Sorry Russell .that's all you're gonna get . I brought it down to the level a 5th grade student would understand . If you're having trouble , then show it to a friend [ not Donald_M  as he suffers the same malady as you ] and have that friend explain it to you . No further labeling is necessary , no further elaboration of terms .You know what each point * and letter means . The expanse of time between A  and  B is what we are discussing as to the validity of any theory attempting to describe laws or conditions which may have existed in that time period , which has been referred to as 3 planck segments or seconds .  Very simple Russell , draw a line from A to B . There was no Big Bang Russell , or have you forgotten that already ? The Big Bang is a metaphor for the start of the Inflation of the Universe , and that would be  the point - A .  No one knows what caused  A , no one knows what went on in the time expanse between  A  and  B . There are no theories , just speculation .

If you still can't understand what is being explained here Russsell , then you should NOT be engaged in such discussions like this one , as they are obviously beyond your ability to grasp such  concepts .

We are not going to " get started " as you put it , because it has started and finished . There is no need to label the chart in seconds, [that has been done for you ] - as the only section of the chart we are discussing , and have discussed is that part of it between points A -the start of Inflation ,and point B the point 3 planck segments or "seconds " after A the start of Inflation .

I have provided all you need to counter my statement ,- " that science knows nothing of what happened BEFORE point- B " which represents 3 planck seg.or seconds [means the same thing ] after point A -the start of Inflation .  Dirt simple Russell .

So tell me , what theories are there , that can be considered anything other than speculation ,regarding conditions or laws existing between A  and B ?

Still don't understand Russell ?   Go to Physics Forum , or another of many Science websites , or try reading some books on the subject , but be careful going to those forums , they might not find your pranks amusing and ban you quite quickly .

Share on other sites

Yeah, okay. Phew! Glad that's over...

We'll pop over to the physics forum & grab a bite to eat...

You stay at home & re-sit your English exam.

We'll have to go to the zoo another time.

Understanding what value is to be given to various words, in various instances, makes all the difference.

And we're glad that you've come to realise this.

Best of luck.

Share on other sites

That's about the best that you can do Donald_M .

After all, that discussion was way over your head to begin with . You're neither a philosopher or language specialist , so criticism coming from a common B.S. artist like yourself , is really inconsequential and irrelevant as far as I'm concerned .

And I doubt you'll " popover " anywhere. Both you and Russell are and have been too busy massaging your own egos , to take the time to actualy learn what it is, you are attempting to criticize .

However your juvenile complaint ,remarks and comments have been duly noted and deposited where they belong .

Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

It’s a pity that you can’t elucidate the details of that chart as that might move this discussion forward but oh well let’s see what we can do with it anyway.

First let me add a few details from the standard view of this and you can comment on them.

* A - - - * B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - -* C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *P

Now the standard view has more detail which may elucidate your problems with understanding this.

B - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - IB - - - - - - - - - - - IE - - - - - - - - - - - - -C - - - - - - - - - - - >P

B = The initiating event that started the universe and the beginning of the Planck Epoch (this is generally called the big bang though it’s a very inaccurate term as we’ve discussed).

P is the end of the Planck Epoch

IB = Inflation Began

IE = Inflation Ends

C = the point at which the universe became transparent, it was the moment at which the Cosmic Microwave Background appeared, the echo of which we can still detect.

P = Present day.

Now to compare the standard view and your timeline we have to align them.  I’ll add your letters in brackets so you can see how it fits in.

B - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - IB(A&C)  –(B) - -- - - - - - - - IE - - - - - - - - - - - - -C - - - - - - - - - - - >P(P)

B is at 0 seconds, P  is at 10-43 of a second, IB is at 10-36 of a second and IE is at around 10-33 to 10-32 of a second.  C is at around 380000 years.

You stated earlier that a Planck second was that 10-43 of a second figure which would place your B at (3x10-43) + 10-36 which is basically 10-36 of a second or the beginning of inflation.  You’ve placed C at some point after the beginning of inflation but you failed to mark the end of inflation so it’s hard to place when exactly that was.  I described that point as 10000000 Planck seconds after the beginning of the universe, note I didn’t say after the beginning of inflation which was later, and 10000000 Planck seconds was the time between the beginning of the universe and the start of inflation so I’m not sure why you’ve put it so far down your graph as if it’s based on that figure it falls at the start of inflation.  That’s one of those discrepancies we’ll need to clarify if we want this discussion to move forwards.

OK So I’ll leave it to you to clarify how your picture fits within the standard view but let’s move on.

Gravitational waves and density waves are predicted by the inflationary model to create B-Mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background at precise angular scales.  These signals have been detected at the exact scale predicted by the current inflationary model.  That signal comes from within inflation and is generated progressively by the totality of inflation so it doesn’t relate to one specific point, there’s no 3 segments of anything in this view.  At this point the model is an overview, it makes testable predictions but no one knows the ‘mechanics’ of what is driving inflation or the exact interactions within the universe at that time.  It’s probably this lack of knowledge you are talking about but it doesn’t relate to that 3 planck segments you keep talking about as the boundary is far more vague.

So in the end we are probably pretty much in agreement, I believe we have details back before the beginning of inflation though that information is very speculative but it does make predictions that have been borne out in testing so it’s more than just a guess but we are going to need a lot of time to tease out more details of that time if it’s even possible.  The detail we have from before or even during inflation are sketchy at best and they contain very little detail of the interactions that occurred.  You on the other hand make the claim that we know nothing and have only guesses.  In lay language that’s a little way from the truth but not a huge distance so you are pretty close to correct but the fact that these overview models do make testable predictions strongly suggests that there’s some truth in them still the difference in our positions appears to be just a matter of degrees and no more now that you’ve finally explained what it is that you are claiming.

Russell

Share on other sites

No Russell , as expected you misunderstood the illustration and as expected , twisted and contorted your reply with irrelevant information . And all to obfuscate THREE FACTS  :

1)   You don't know what you're talking about

3) You're a B.S. artist with a confused vocabulary , and no understanding of the fundamentals of the issue we are discussing

In short Russell , you're so full of it , that it's coming out your ears .

Go take Donald_M to the zoo , and make sure you have an ample supply of dihydrogen monoxide . You can both ask the KOALAS for advice.

Share on other sites

BTW Russell , you don't deserve it , but to save you the embarrassment of making a bigger fool of yourself , than you already have , Google  dihydrogen monoxide  .

Russell you know nothing ,save for expiating meaningless blather and nonsense .

Share on other sites

So yet again you have nothing to add hey Eclipse.  OK!  If you come up with anything then please come back to us but I suspect that one of those in this conversation doesn't know what he's talking about.

Share on other sites

Russell , I have nothing to add , because your whole argument is one big NOTHING . You have made no sense at all , you are incapable of understanding a simple illustration , and your attempt to claim water is , or ever was called dihydrogen monoxide , more or less DEFINES YOU .

A purveyor of babbling blather and nonsense

Did you Google   dihydrogen monoxide  ? Or are you afraid of seeing how utterly foolish you are.

Get back to "us " ?  HaHa ,so you and Donald_M are sharing a room eh ?     Birds of a feather .....HaHaHa

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

No I didn't need to google it, as I said I've got the T Shirt from the original 'hoax', but I have now just for your benefit.  From Wikipedia "The dihydrogen monoxide hoax involves calling water by the unfamiliar chemical name 'dihydrogen monoxide'".  Critically you'll note that, as I pointed out last time, it is a valid chemical name just an unfamiliar one to many people apparently including you.

Thanks Eclipse.

Russell

Share on other sites

Your reading comprehension is as flawed as your understanding of Astro-physics , and everything else that you've attempted to show yourself knowledgeable in . Water has never been called by that chemical name , that was part of the hoax , which NOW after actually reading about it , you admit it a hoax  ,and ONLY  after getting thoroughly busted and outted for the phony that you are .

Lie again to reinforce a previous lie  , and then you have a house of lies  and like cards that collapses.

Share on other sites

Russell , and to prove you are a liar , refer to your post #99 put up at5:13pm today on the other thread were you are flinging your B.S. around .

quote-

"So , DiHydrogen Monoxide is a valid description of water at least it was way back when I studied chemistry. You could also call it Di-Hydrogen Oxide with the Mono status of Oxygen being assumed "  - endquote

Those are YOUR words Russell .  And then you go onto to compound your foolishness and state " It is perfectly valid  " .

Are you serious Russell , are you under the influence of some chemical ? YOU LIED , until you got busted . You said "way back when you studied chemistry "  you did not mention anything about a hoax .  And you OBVIOUSLY NEVER took any chemistry courses , if you had , you would never had made that statement .As I said , liars never remember their lies correctly .

You are caught in your LIE Russell .

You are a liar , pure and simple . A pretender . You know nothing of Chemistry , nor the  topic of Inflation and the Universe . You do not know how to put forth a truthful statement . Virtually everything that you have posted are lies at best , and certainly  they are not anything you have received training in or even bothered to self study in .You've proven this , and as the expression goes in debate , your arguments have been destroyed .

Cheers Mate [ I doubt that ,where you claim your from is true  ]

Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

Yes I think I’m getting it now.  I love it that you still haven’t worked out what the ‘hoax’ was about even though you apparently googled it.

There is no lie and no contradiction in what I said, there was indeed a dihydrogen monoxide hoax but the hoax had nothing to do with that name not being a valid chemical description of water, it was that.  No the hoax consisted of using this ‘scary’ chemical name for it then pointing out that it was found in 100% of human cancers, that it was deadly in large concentrations, that it accelerates corrosion and can cause severe burns etc etc.  Yes it was a long list of the terrible effects of this ‘chemical’.  After people had signed the partition against it they were shown that they had signed a partition against water.  That was the hoax.  Dihydrogen monoxide is a perfectly valid chemical description of water but it sounds scary to say it that way.  People are scared of chemicals but this ‘Hoax’ showed that that fear was often unfounded because, let’s face it, the entire world is chemicals and many of them are basically harmless, chemicals such as Dihydrogen monoxide or water if you would prefer are actually necessary to our lives.

LOL and that hoax apparently just caught another victim hey Eclipse!  I won’t comment further but thanks for the laugh.

Now what was that again about lying and not knowing any chemistry?

Russell

• 1

Share on other sites

Oh please Russell , go tell that B.S. to your adolescent and gullible friends . You got caught in a lie ,in fact several lies , and that is because you are ignorant , and too dull to realize you've been outted .  Dihydrogen Monoxide is not water , never was never will be . It's part of an urban legend over 20 years old and you got sucked into it .

So save you latest bucket of blather .

I don't waste time on liars especially pathological liars like YOU .

Hopefully the other posters on these threads will realize that you're full of it , through and through , and should not be taken seriously on any account . And that goes for your equally pathetic alter ego Donald_M , which is likely you double-posting anyway . If not, then you both are certainly cut from the same cloth.

Good riddance Chump , I've already wasted way too much time on a scatter brained liar like you .

Share on other sites

LOL you'll have to show me where there was any B.S. in what I said.  Again lets see if you can do it, put your money where your mouth is.  Google the dihydrogen monoxide hoax and see what you find, you'll see that what I related was the simple truth of it and, as I said, the hoax has apparently caught another one because the hoax was about people who don't understand chemistry not understanding that dihydrogen monoxide was just plain water. Apparently there are still people out there who don't get it.

"The dihydrogen monoxide hoax involves calling water by the unfamiliar chemical name 'dihydrogen monoxide' (DHMO), and listing some of water's effects in an alarming manner, such as the fact that it accelerates corrosion and can cause sever burns.  The hoax often calls for dihydrogen monoxide to be regulated, labeled as hazardous, or banned.  It illustrates how the lack of scientific literacy and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears" - Wikipedia

You'll note in that quote that it points out that 'dihydrogen monoxide' is an unfamiliar chemical name not that it is invalid and that's the real point here, it is valid but unfamiliar to the scientifically illiterate. The latter part is telling, the hoax exposes that a lack of scientific literacy can cause misplaced fears or in your case simple misunderstanding of what this discussion is all about.

Edited by russell

Share on other sites

Hi All

I’d like to examine something here that has been becoming clearer post by post on this website.  I’ve been discussing several things with Eclipse but have been getting virtually nothing back apart from Ad Hominem complaints.  Actual substance is virtually non existent from his side and when it does appear he seems incapable of supporting it or discussing it.  Does that seem like the actions of an intelligent and educated poster or is this more fitting to someone who is actually way out of his depth in this discussion?

Ad Hominem is the logical fallacy of complaining that your opponent’s arguments are wrong because of who they are.  It’s a fallacy because even the most ignorant or objectionable person may still speak the truth so you must always address what they have said not the person themselves.  Ad Hominem is the noise made by an empty vessel generally.  Read back through Eclipse’s posts and see what percentage of the text contained in there is Ad Hominem and what percentage is actual content to get a feel for what I am seeing here.

Eclipse also claims that my arguments are so infantile as to be unworthy of a response though he seems to have plenty of time to complain and insult but how many of the arguments I have put has he actually managed to address?  Read back and the figure is about zero of the actual substantive claims I’ve made.  He seems incapable of understanding the timelines I’ve been talking about, what is 10-36 of a second after the initiation of the universe for example?  He doesn’t show any signs of understanding this standard scientific notation of time.  The one claim he’s made was that 10-43 of a second was one planck segment but then misapplied 1000000 of them to a time after the start of inflation when that is actually the time between the beginning of the universe and the beginning of inflation.  He’s shown no signs of understanding that as yet.

This pattern of misunderstanding continued in our most recent rounds on the dihydrogen monoxide hoax discussion.  Eclipse accused me of lying, though he couldn’t point to any statement I had made that was false, and continued to complain that the term dihydrogen monoxide was not a valid description of water.  The funny thing is that that error was what the hoax was based on, dihydrogen monoxide is a valid chemical description of water but most people don’t know that and, in the original hoax, they would sign partitions against this ‘terrible chemical’ without realizing that it was just plain water.  I’m not sure if Eclipse has yet worked out that he has also fallen for this hoax in a slightly different form here.  Is that the sort of error in very basic chemistry that you would expect of someone who knows so much more than me that he doesn’t find my points worthy of an answer?

So what are we to make of a poster who can’t or won’t address specific points, who complains loudly and repeatedly that those he is discussing these things with don’t know what they are talking about all the while not actually addressing what they have said.  That not addressing the points made is typical of someone who really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  Is that Eclipse do you think?  Is all the complaining a cover for the fact that he has no idea what’s being said and so simply can’t answer the points made?

So let’s see where he goes next but I think his true character is clear to see.  He’s threatened to ignore my posts now that he’s been caught out in his lack of chemistry knowledge and he’s still not managed to fit his ideas on cosmology and inflation into the standard scientific view which, even if he does not accept he should at least understand enough to point out the flaws he sees in it.  It is the majority scientific view at the moment so even the most ignorant person with any interest in this topic should be aware of it.

Russell

Share on other sites

Russell , anyone possessing minimal intelligence can see the game you are playing . Your replies to my post # 75 on this thread clearly shows your deceptive debating practices .

Post #75 clearly states my position and the present position taken by science as it relates to what is actually known by science . I drew you a picture which you , in your usual deceptive habit , twisted and distorted beyond recognition .

This can lead one to only one of two conclusions 1) you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about and anything you have stated is nothing more than cut and pasting information that you either made up or totally don't understand .

2) you are simply a liar looking to win an argument where you know that, by any debating standards , your arguments have been destroyed .

Fortunately for you , there are no other knowledgeable  participants on this thread , other than YOUR Donald_M character , whom if I had to wager, is none other than YOU signing in under another screen name. You Lie , he agrees .

You call my attacks ad hominem which you can not even spell right , displaying more of a basic ignorance on your part. However when on knowingly LIES with the propensity and impunity as you have demonstrated , I am simply calling you out on it.

And as I stated in my opening paragraph , anyone with intelligence and a minimal command of the English language , can read my post #75 of this thread , then read your contorted , distorted, and deceptive replies, and easily ascertain that you are simply pretending ignorance of what was clearly drawn out in picture and quite simply  explained.   Again fortunately for you , though you fancy yourself knowledgeable on the subject , there are no other participants in this thread that are interested in the pure science of the argument ,since this debate contains no religious connotations .

As for your endless and ongoing arguments with Andalusi ?

If you were a man of honor , and not a person so interested in puffing up your ego, as someone who possesses a higher reasoning ability , and truly , just plain too lazy ,  you would refute Andalusi's claims with a destroyer [ that is  basically a term used in a debate to absolutely refute an argument with an indisputable counter-point ]  you would refute Andalusi simply by referring him to one of several books refuting  and totally debunking the author of the book written, on said "Numerical Miracles ", from which Andalusi is cut and pasting all his information from .

But you are not an honorable man , because you have lied , and your ego exceeds your faux intention  to inform . I hope Andalusi for his own sake , calls you out on your efforts, not to correct him , but to make a fool of him in your veiled  deceptive manner .

Russell your statements would have you immediately laughed off any science blog , if you made the remarks you have made here .

Shame on you Russell .

Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

Welcome back.

Again I’ll just ignore the Ad Hominem stuff, it’s irrelevant.

In post 75 you presented a picture of the universe’s development that does not accord with the standard view so I presented the standard view and tried to relate the points you included in your post into it.  Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/inflation_(cosmology) for an overview of the currently accepted model.  You’ll see in the Overview section a graphic showing the timeline I have been trying to get you to discuss since we started this.  Can you fit your timeline into this standard view for us if you don’t like the attempt I have made?

That’s about all the actual content you included so that’ll do.

Russell

Share on other sites

Russell , I see you bring back more of your confused rubbish.My post#75 clearly depicts that point in time after Inflation started, to which any/ all known physical laws can be applied. Anything before that point is unknown. You can go to any science blog or publication and see for yourself , rather than bloviating your B.S.

If you know of a physicist , astrophysicist ,cosmologist or any scientist in related fields who can explain what events and physical laws applied before that point , then bring it forward.

Come up with the name of any scientist  , publication or website that claims to have anything more than theory , hypothesis or conjecture regarding the event and/or physical laws at work that brought about Inflation or as my original point ,the time 10-43sec after inflation started. And POST IT Russell , not any of you contorted garbage.Post the source and references /links etc . I don't want to hear any more of your confused hair brained versions , which you are fooling yourself and everyone else into thinking that they make any sense.

Otherwise bow out of a debate that you have no business engaging in .

Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

So it seems you still can’t relate your view to the standard view I’ve presented.  As I pointed  out earlier that 10-43 of a second, the end of the plank epoch, falls well before the beginning of inflation.  Maybe once you begin to comprehend that we can move forward.

You complain that we don’t ‘know’ anything before that point but lets look at that.  Firstly we don’t ‘know’ anything in science apart from what’s wrong.  We don’t ‘know’ that the sun will rise tomorrow though I think the chances are pretty good that it will.  Science deals in falsifying ideas.  No matter how much evidence you may gather that supports your idea you are always just one failed observation away from having it thrown out.

The plank epoch is a time at the very beginning of this universe, it’s stated by Victor J Stenger as lasting for 1.6x10-43 of a second.  During this time the universe was all contained within the limits of quantum uncertainty so we can say that we probably can’t ‘know’ what happened then.  From then till the beginning of inflation was 10-36 of a second according to this view.  No we don’t 'know' that but I’ve explained that.  This is the common view held by quite a few well qualified in this field so I’m surprised you are not aware of it.  This view fits all of the data we have from that time.  There is then a time which is somewhat indeterminate until the effects of inflation stamped their signatures onto the radiation that would become the cosmic microwave background.  That’s the first direct evidence we have to work with of what happened back then but the cosmic microwave background didn’t appear until around 380000 years after the beginning of the universe so this evidence is indirect and only related back to its point of origin by mathematical modeling.  Those models don’t stop at the point at which those gravitational and density waves stamped their signatures onto the universe the math’s runs backwards from there with less and less certainty to the end of the plank epoch which is well before inflation began.

Drawing a line in the sand at some point you can’t define (though it’s after the start of inflation) and saying we know nothing before that is simply wrong, our ‘knowledge is a sliding scale with less certainty before that point and more after it.  That’s the way of science.

Now a challenge for you, I understand that you have struggled so far to relate your view to the standard view I’ve related here but we really can’t progress this unless you at least try.  Can you attempt to redraw you’re diagram and add in the event’s I’ve been discussing.  Show us where the plank epoch fits within your timeline.  Label it in seconds as I have done even though this is extrapolated into imaginary time obviously.  Add in the beginning and end of inflation, the point of generation of the gravitational and density waves that we see reflected in the cosmic microwave background and the point beyond which you claim we ‘know nothing’.  You stated in your last post that this moment was 10-43 of a second after inflation started but inflation lasted for 10-32 of a second making 10-43 of a second 0.000000001% of the duration of inflation or basically at the very beginning of it.  Why bother mentioning a time which for all intents and purposes is the very beginning as if it has some specific relevance unless you can support this minute timing with some data?  I suspect that you don’t actually understand what 10-43 of a second means but I’ll let you demonstrate otherwise if you can.  Fitting it into the standard view I’ve presented here might help.

You challenged me to present a physicist who believed we could understand what happened before this undefined point of yours.  One such was the late Victor J Stenger who was Emeritus Professor of Physics and Cosmology at the University of Hawaii and a member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.  I was a member, for many years, of the email list he ran which delved into this and other questions of interest.  He was an amazing and humble man in all the interactions I had with him or saw him have with other people.  He delves into what we can calculate in quite some detail in a number of his publications.  His work on this is long and complex but it’s well worth a read.  I tried to paste some of it into this thread but this forum doesn’t handle the maths well so I’ve had to remove it.  You can find one of his publications at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0710/0710.3137.pdf.  For the rest of you this is one really small piece of what ‘absolutely nothing’ looks like.  Victor is far from the only physicists / cosmologist to delve mathematically into this area.

Russell

Share on other sites

Russell , enough with your jibberish . I'll make it real easy for you . I'll do your homework for you ,as well as your "due diligence ".
I'll not play this jousting game , but instead , direct you to where the latest information can be gleaned . And since you refuse to discuss our particular argument, and would rather obfuscate that with data that followed the period of time discussed , my point will be accentuated on those pages .

Go to Google , type in Planck Epoch [Wikipedia] , on that page find a drop down titled , Chronology of the Universe . Click on it and you'll get your facts straight as to what we know and what we don't know , you'll also find my simple drawing depicts what you'll find on that page . You'll know the meaning of the terms conjecture and theory as it applies to the particular segment in the Chronology of the Universe we discussed . And that is the segment in the  chronology of the Universe between T and T + 10 -43 seconds, or the Planck Epoch . There is no information , no physics , be it quantum , particle ,or classical laws, that can be applied, nor is there any theoretical mathematics that work .And that is because before that time  , the quantities of energy . gravity , time ,and space enter into a realm ,which for all practical purposes can be called infinite . It is untestable and un-falsifiable and at present , impossible to determine conditions of the Universe before the Planck Epoch or T+ 10- 43 seconds .

Now if that concept ,of that period of time ,after the beginning of the mechanism which started the Inflation , is beyond your grasp , then you are obviously incapable of understanding the argument you are engaged in.

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

Ok now we’re making progress.  You’ve pointed to the page “Chronology of the universe” which contains a picture, it’s the linear representation of the universe as it’s currently understood.  Click on it and press right twice and you’ll see the logarithmic view which is the one I’ve been discussing as it shows more of the details from before inflation began.  Same view just viewed at a more relevant time scale.  You’ll see if you refer to this latter picture that 10-43 of a second is marked to the left of the image BEFORE INFLATION STARTS which is what’s causing the confusion here as you keep referent to that time as if it happened after inflation started.  Do you see the problem yet Eclipse?

Now read on in the first page you linked “Planck Epoch” and see what it says as it describes that time I’ve been talking about again, 10-43 of a second as the epoch in question and states that “the Planck epoch may have inaugurated a period of unification, known as the grand unification epoch, and that symmetry breaking then quickly lead to the era of COSMIC INFLATION…”.  In other words it documents what I’ve been saying 10-43 of a second after the beginning of the universe is the end of the Planck epoch and it PREDATES THE BEGINNING OF INFLATION yet you stated that the boundary to our knowledge was 10-43 of a second AFTER THE BEGINNING OF INFLATION.  You’re timeline isn’t consistent with the view in these pages you have linked but those pages do agree with the timeline I’ve been trying to get you to discuss since we started this.

So please read the pages you have linked and see what they say, see if you can get your statements of after the beginning of inflation to mesh with the views painted in these pages.  I agree with what these pages say and have from the start of this, we can know nothing about what happened during the Planck epoch which occurred 10-36 of a second BEFORE INFLATION STARTED.  From there we can mathematically model in more and more detail what probably happened.  Our information comes from the Cosmic Background Radiation which is imprinted with a signature generated from waves (gravitational and density waves) generated during inflation but the effects of that imprinting give us details back to earlier times than the moment of their generation again all as I have been saying all along.

Eclipse please try now to explain the view you’ve been presenting in light of these pages you have linked and see if you can get your story to fit.  Maybe then we can make some progress here.

Russell

Edited by russell

Share on other sites

Hey Russell , you got all the help you're going to get . I referred you to the pages you would need to read AND understand . Obviously you don't ...oh well . Go and seek out the scientists on the leading edge of cosmology ,cosmogony and physics and sell your story to them .

After your  " di-hydrogen monoxide " bit , you have zero credibility as far as I'm concerned , and your faux challenges are getting a bit repetitious and boring .

Wanna learn ? Go to the pages I referred you to , I don't feel any obligation to be your tutor . Don't hurt yourself Russell .

Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

You’ll have to go back and show me where you have presented any “help” what so ever here.  Ad Hominem yes plenty of that, complaints that I know nothing, yes plenty of that too but actual content, virtually zero.  You did present a very rough linear timeline then discussed timeframes that can only be seen in a logarithmic timeline which I presented yet you still haven’t shown that you understand the difference or how your timeline fits within the standard logarithmic timeline normally used when discussing these timeframes.

What else, I guess I have to mention that you fell for the dihydrogen monoxide hoax in a different form and still don’t seem to have realised your error.  That’s not promising when you claim to be really clever here.

I’m sorry if my challenging you to actually present some evidence or reason over and over again is getting a bit repetitious, I agree by the way, but you have so far failed to actually present anything other than the vaguest timeline which, as I’ve pointed out, was in the wrong scale to be useful in this discussion anyway.  So can you do it?  Can you actually get down to brass tacks and discuss actual details Eclipse or is this the best you are capable of?

Russell

Share on other sites

Sorry ? you don't have to be sorry Russell. I understand . You can not grasp the concept. But that is not my fault. It was explained to you on a grade school level , I drew you a picture , I provided you credible , up to date, and accurate references by the leading scientists in the several fields involving the subject matter.

Russell -* Nothing is known before the end of the Planck Epoch.* If you think there is , then by all means , come back and put it up.

After all, as much as you have attempted to muddle the issue , and I have had to adjust my statements according  to your "alleged" misinterpretations , at least  as far as what you claim to be ignorant  or unaware of , you have no challenge. I am offering fact not opinion. What you have offered is confusion. There is no challenge .

So  Russell , bring back your evidence to refute my statement -

*Science knows nothing, regarding any existing conditions of the Universe, before the end of the Planck Epoch, but can only offer conjecture , theory, or hypotheses.*

Time to put up or shut up Russell .