[snips]
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:03:49 +0000, boboro**** of TOKUS wrote:
> Dubh Ghall <puck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>>>There is no " *before* the big bang".
>
> bobo:
>>>how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>
> jesucristo2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(marques de sade):
>>i think what he means is the big-bang precedes time...
>
> how did you determine this? what is your evidence?
>
>>so since the concepts of before and after involve time, then
>>contemplating such events must occur after the big bang... ...
>
> neither of you have been there or seen it. why do you believe that any
> Big Bang ever existed? because you infer it without having direct
> evidence of its having transpired?
Here's a corpse. It has a bullet-sized hole in the front of it. The
front of its clothing is covered in GSR. The bullet - somewhat mangled -
is still in the body. Damage to the body shows the path of the bullet,
as it struck two bones and was deflected. Said damage also shows the
approximate speed of the bullet at entry, consistent with the usual
behaviour of bullets fired at close range.
So; we have a bullet. It was going about the right speed. Through an
entry hole. Which is covered in GSR. All of which is consistent with
the notion the person was shot at close range.
However, in your view, there's no direct evidence a gun was involved.
This is actually *sort of* right. It could have been a modified pipe,
rather than a Smith and Wesson. However, such a detail is irrelevant,
insofar as we're not trying to determine whether it was a Smith and
Wesson or a Colt, what we're trying to determine is whether a _gun_ was
involved - a device for firing bullets. A modified piece of pipe would
qualify. The evidence is sufficient to conclude "a gun" - whatever sort
- was, in fact, involved.
We do not need to see the shooting to determine a gun was involved, the
evidence we have is sufficient.
Now, exactly where did this crap about "neither of you have been there to
see it" come into play? Oh, right, it didn't, because it's crap.
Dispensing with the crap, what's left of the discussion? Oh, yes, the
issue of time.
How do we know there was no time before the BB? Simple: we measure time
by events within our universe, events which can be detected, measured.
This requires the ability to observe them, which in turn requires that
physics works in a manner which allows such observations to occur.
Yet the BB is a singularity; the laws we know break down as you approach
the BB. Nor is this idle speculation; much of the work involved in
approaching such conditions, though on a smaller scale, has in fact been
done. The BB is a singularity, the rules don't apply within it.
But wait... our whole concept of time *requires* consistent rules. It
*requires* predictable manners of particle or energy interaction. It
*requires* consistent interactions between those particles or energies
and the space in which they exist. If the rules don't apply, we *cannot*
measure time, we cannot even *define* time, within such an event.
Which means, in turn, we have no way of even determining if there was a
"time zero", as we simply cannot measure time that far back; the whole
concept of "time" ceases to have any meaning.
But wait... if we cannot even meaningfully say there was a time zero,
cannot meaningfully define time itself in those conditions, how can we
possibly even consider the notion of something "before" that?
We can't find the zero point, we can't define the relations between
events, yet you want to examine something which is dependent upon both a
zero point *and* meaningful relations between events in conditions where
they don't apply?
I'll make you a deal. *You* define how, exactly, we measure time inside
a singularity, *you* explain how we find that zero point, *you* define
how we measure events surrounding that zero point - and particularly,
beyond it - "before" it, as you say - and I'll explain what happened
before the BB.
|
