Before the Big Bang, was there an unspecified volume of spatial points ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mohat

Banned
Banned
Before the big bang was there an unspecified volume of spatial points that has always existed ?

0^∞=0

Before the big bang there was nothing !
 
Last edited:
Mohat said:
Then the Big Bang theory is implausible because expansion needs a volume of space to expand into and space cannot be created or destroyed .
Click to expand...

Perhaps....
But try first to answer this simple question (Level 1) :
What is north of the north pole ?

Your answer : .......

Then (Level 70, if you are a WOW player you know what i mean) :
What is before the begining ?

Your answer : .......

A ''hot dense state'' needs a volume of space to occupy .
Click to expand...

Perhaps...
But the BB theory do no go so "far".

Science really didn't think this through !
Click to expand...

Science do not think (Heidegger)
Quora said:
Let’s start with this analysis (from Trish Glazebrook’s “Why Read Heidegger On Science?”

Heidegger is not opposed to science per se insofar as he does not reject the human project of understanding nature. The most well-known basis for dismissing him as simply “anti-science” is the claim he makes repeatedly in Was Heisst Denken? that “science does not think” (WD, 4/8, et passim). But he also says often in this text that “most thought-provoking of all is that we are still not thinking” (WD, 2/4, et passim). His objection is not so much to science as to scientism, that is, the preclusion of other ways of thinking by the representational thinking of the sciences, and the marginalization, displacement, and devaluation of other methodologies and bodies of knowledge by the scientific standard of objectivity that has become epistemologically dominant in modernity.

I haven’t read Was Heisst Denken (What is Called Thinking) — a lapse I’ll need to address — but if I can interpolate a bit, I think there are two issues involved here.

First, anyone who has spent time in academia will recognize that ‘science’ as it’s practiced in the modern era is fairly thoughtless. It has fallen heavily into what Thomas Kuhn called ‘normal science’, where most scientists aren't really concerned with scientific advancement as much as they are with fleshing out practical applications, or with trivial experiments meant to pad curriculum vitae and create personal advancement within the discipline. Most of what we find in scientific journals these days isn’t meant to be insightful, challenging, or novel; they are pro forma articles discussing boilerplate experiments testing things that everyone takes for granted. These articles are meant to gain the authors position or tenure, maybe to secure some grant money, possibly to explore industrial uses that will generate income… There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but those kinds of articles and that kind of research can be done without creative thought, and without ever reaching outside the narrow, myopic, systematic cubbyhole of that particular scientific field.

This goes back to Aristotle’s distinction between technê and epistêmê: technê is simple craftsmanship, meant to be practical and commercially viable, while epistêmê invokes real developing understanding of a subject. For people like Heidegger the narrow objectivity of modern science — narrow in the sense that it fussily focuses in on tiny controllable contexts to the exclusion of everything else in the world — is pure technê, without any real thought or understanding behind it.

Second, this collapse into technê has created a broad societal form of scientism. People have stopped investigating, questioning, or trying to understand science, and merely believe in it: a belief that science and technology will inevitably give us what we want, and so we don’t have to worry or think about it. Every year there’s a new toy, a new convenience, a new productivity tool, a new study, and so naturally people come to believe that science will also inevitably solve (say) the problems of their love lives, or political conflicts, or bigotry, or other problems of ethics, aesthetics, etc, because, you know… Science! Further, this collapse into scientism has laid the ground for the modern anti-intellectual, anti-scientific movements. Mere belief can be merely opposed; conspiracy theory and denialism are atheism for scientism, opposing the irrational belief of scientism without ever confronting (and usually actively disdaining) science itself.

For Heidegger, I think, this kind of scientism is the root of nihilism: a blind faith in science (like blind faith in God) means that people can all sink into the tiny worldviews of their immediate perceptual lives in the belief that someone or something else will take care of questions of value (moral meaning) at the same time as whatever-it-is satisfies material, teleological ends. Perhaps the next generation of iPhones will solve the ongoing crises in the middle east… Such people don’t question the relationship of science to morality — or even whether there is such a relationship — and thus lose all sense of moral meaning by deferral and default.
Click to expand...
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-“science-does-not-think”-by-M-Heidegger-mean
 
Dicart said:
Perhaps....
But try first to answer this simple question (Level 1) :
What is north of the north pole ?

Your answer : .......

Then (Level 70, if you are a WOW player you know what i mean) :
What is before the begining ?

Your answer : .......



Perhaps...
But the BB theory do no go so "far".



Science do not think (Heidegger)

https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-“science-does-not-think”-by-M-Heidegger-mean
Click to expand...
Yes indeed , the Big Bang theory is incomplete starting with a ''hot dense state'' that isn't explained .

The big bang theory doesn't suggest there wasn't a pre-existing volume of spatial points to my knowledge .

There as always existed an unspecified volume of spatial points and at a random spatial point formed a ''hot dense state'' that expanded is more physically accurate ?
 
Mohat said:
Before the big bang was there an unspecified volume of spatial points that has always existed ?

0^∞=0

Before the big bang there was nothing !
Click to expand...
What was "before the big bang" is purely speculative. Anyone can make guesses, but current physics could not give any answers.
 
mathman said:
What was "before the big bang" is purely speculative. Anyone can make guesses, but current physics could not give any answers.
Click to expand...
I personally do not like to speculate , I consider the physics involved and the physics I've provided is one plausible option based on working physics .


a+a=0/t

b+b=0/t

Based on Coulombs laws of charges and force involved (a) repulses (a) and (b) repulses (b) so therefore a+a or b+b cannot converge to form a stable singularity the same as a+b=1/t .

Additionally a physical requirement of a ''hot dense state'' would be a+b .
 
Last edited:
Mohat said:
Before the big bang there was nothing !
Click to expand...
Can we say that before the BB there was no space, but there was a "permittive condition", which initially allowed for the FTL inflationary epoch. Once space was of sufficient size and temperature, the laws of nature took hold and spacetime became both permittive and restrictive in accordance to natural laws.
 
Write4U said:
Can we say that before the BB there was no space, but there was a "permittive condition", which initially allowed for the FTL inflationary epoch. Once space was of sufficient size and temperature, the laws of nature took hold and spacetime became both permittive and restrictive in accordance to natural laws.
Click to expand...
That is well written but how can we say/declare there is no space when evidently for an expansion of any thing physical , the event requires a physical space to expand into ?

A problem I observe is that people can't or don't distinguish the difference between definitions .

Space is described :
noun
  1. 1.
    a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
An unspecified volume of spatial points describes a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied , any given point having a 0 value .

Matter is described :

noun
noun: matter; plural noun: matters; noun: the matter
  1. 1.
    physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.
    "the structure and properties of matter"

Can't we say that :

Before the Big Bang which always existed , is a continuous area or expanse (An unspecified volume of spatial points) ,that can be occupied by physical substance in general . A ''permittive condition", which initially allowed for the FTL inflationary epoch of recombination .

In mathematical terms we can describe this real coordinate space Rn

Any element of Rn is thus a n-tuple, and is written

47d8b3ec62633086002489cad8df4214e9585880
 
Last edited:
Sorry my mistake , n-tuples don't quite work to explain correctly .

Can't we say that :

Before the Big Bang which always existed , is a continuous area or expanse (An unspecified volume of spatial points) ,that can be occupied by physical substance in general . A ''permittive condition", which initially allowed for the FTL inflationary epoch of recombination .

In mathematical terms we can describe this as real coordinate space Rn

Any given point of Rn can be written :

(x0,y0,z0)

????????????
 
Dicart said:
What is north of the north pole ?
Click to expand...
Which direction do you wish to move from the North Pole?

ie I am standing on the North Pole.

Do you wish me to go vertical? In that case answer the Universe

Rotate through 360°? Any degree you pick the answer will be South

Want me to dig below my feet? Answer South

Any angle from vertical to horizontal with ground. Answer Universe

Any angle from horizontal with ground to vertical (downwards). Answer Universe, after digging through a section of Earth

Did I miss any destination North of North?

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top