if the universe and space was created at the moment of the big bang where did the big bang happen At the instan before the event there was nowhere a?

[Catastrophe]

IG, Sorry if there is a misunderstanding. Cyclic does not mean repetitive. It is like (I am not saying is) starting with a black hole, being compressed - not totally to a singularity - and emerging through the nexus as a BB into another phase. No information survives passage through the nexus (as would happen if it were repetitive).

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, with all due respect, you know, you are kind of disagreeing with yourself. A universe that is cyclic and something that has been cyclic forever must be infinite. I mean, at least, logic says so.

Oh! OK, sorry - I was replying to the wrong thing. I am dashing around as I have an X-ray and blood tests this morning at two different places.
Yes, you are right. If it is cyclic it has no beginning and no end (according to our limited perceptions) and so is infinite.
I just don't like the word infinite. It is a different "sort" (interpretation) of infinite.
Different sorts of infinite. That is one for you to ponder!


Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

OK, I worked it out. When we are talking about spacetime, (as we imagine it) as a torus. This is the cyclic part. For whatever 'reason', the torus goes through phases of expansion and contraction, with nexuses (I would have preferred nexi) which I see as BHs and BBs. The Universe so imagined is "infinite" in so far as it is timeless and there is nothing "outside" the torus. That is an "infinite" which is self-contained and goes back on itself. Information (at least on a personal level) is not transferred through nexuses.

Then there is the "infinity" I cannot abide. such as 1/0. This is a mathematical abstraction and, imho, has no relevance in the real world. Similarly the problems of infinity 'outside' the Universe, which quod effuderis is nonsense, (from the definition. These are largely based on anthropocentric inability to conceive of examples such as the first case (above) and they think of a flat "going on forever" because they cannot comprehend a torus of spacetime. Hence you get what comes after the last infinite number, and what is there beyond the last bit of space.

What do you think? Have I solved the question of "two kinds" of infinit(e)(y)?

Cat

 

[IG2007]

OK, I worked it out. When we are talking about spacetime, (as we imagine it) as a torus. This is the cyclic part. For whatever 'reason', the torus goes through phases of expansion and contraction, with nexuses (I would have preferred nexi) which I see as BHs and BBs. The Universe so imagined is "infinite" in so far as it is timeless and there is nothing "outside" the torus. That is an "infinite" which is self-contained and goes back on itself. Information (at least on a personal level) is not transferred through nexuses.

Then there is the "infinity" I cannot abide. such as 1/0. This is a mathematical abstraction and, imho, has no relevance in the real world. Similarly the problems of infinity 'outside' the Universe, which quod effuderis is nonsense, (from the definition. These are largely based on anthropocentric inability to conceive of examples such as the first case (above) and they think of a flat "going on forever" because they cannot comprehend a torus of spacetime. Hence you get what comes after the last infinite number, and what is there beyond the last bit of space.

What do you think? Have I solved the question of "two kinds" of infinit(e)(y)?

Cat

Well, so, I can consider the definition of the first type of infinity as a "loop" and the second one as an "impossibility." But I can think of another type of infinity, the infinity that goes on forever. For example, a set of all natural numbers. I hope you understand what I mean to say

 

[Catastrophe]

I consider your third type as 2nd type.

 

[IG2007]

I consider your third type as 2nd type.

Um, actually, no. I mean to say, for example, 1/0 is an impossibility as it is impossible for 1 to come in the table of 0. But, 0/0 is not an impossibility., as you can get 0 everywhere in the table of 0. I hope you can understand what I mean to say.

 

[Catastrophe]

Talk about infinity plus 1 etcetera is, imho, meaningless.
Talk about infinite anything outside the plausible torus is, imho, just being a little silly and playing around with semantic irrelevancies.
Imho, this applies to type 2 = type 3. Convert me ?

P.S. Consider the equation n = n + 1. Solution 0 = 1
If n is an infinitely large number, (any number) adding 1 and saying infinity equals infinity plus 1 is an impossibility. Equals impossible.
Hence type 2 = type 3. QED.

P.P.S. If 0 = something abstract, then we are not dealing with reality, only mathematical abstractions.
If 0 = something very small then 0V1 / 0V2 (V denotes subscripts) gives a real answer. Two different/same very small numbers as a ratio.

 

[IG2007]

P.S. Consider the equation n = n + 1. Solution 0 = 1
If n is an infinitely large number, (any number) adding 1 and saying infinity equals infinity plus 1 is an impossibility. Equals impossible.

Well, Cat, logically speaking, if n is the greatest value that exists, adding 1 to it won't make that value greater. That is just like how asking if something is outside the Universe is a non-question.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Well, Cat, logically speaking, if n is the greatest value that exists, adding 1 to it won't make that value greater." Absolutely correct.
Hence n = n + 1 is impossible. They are statements of exactly the same thing.
"That is just like how asking if something is outside the Universe is a non-question." Absolutely correct.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

"Well, Cat, logically speaking, if n is the greatest value that exists, adding 1 to it won't make that value greater." Absolutely correct.
Hence n = n + 1 is impossible. They are statements of exactly the same thing.
"That is just like how asking if something is outside the Universe is a non-question." Absolutely correct.

Cat

That literally means the Universe doesn't exist if we go by that logic.

 

[Helio]

I would add that there is BBT and ideas that attempt to explain its origin. BBT is a scientific theory that remains consistent until we force it outside the boundary of science.

This is why I think it helps those not too familiar with BBT to consider that the theory began by taking today's observed expansion, then rewinding the clock and checking the physics as the universe contracts (in our minds and on paper). Physics is very strong to the CMBR period (380k year-old universe), strong to the first minute, but perhaps getting almost weak at t=10^-35 sec. There is no physics, IMO, at t=0, only metaphysics, pseudoscience, and lots of word salad and hand-waving. Some of the later could lead us somewhere, admittedly, but most can't.

 

[IG2007]

Helio, perhaps that is why I love the theory.

 

[Helio]

Helio, perhaps that is why I love the theory.

Yes, it reminds me of the time that a tank (Texan for pond), due to winter circumstances, was found to be crystal clear; the bottom was easy to see. It was so inviting, my brother and I (both teenagers) had to jump in!

When I sailed aboard the Texas Clipper (a pre-college program), we learned that the prior year a student, when the ship entered into the Atlantic from the Gulf, jumped overboard into the deep blue and crystal clear water because it was so inviting, though the weed he was smoking help guarantee his helicopter to Bermuda when they eventually found him. [Ships take about 45 minutes to turn-around.]

I wonder how many books -- and chapters in legitimate science books --"jump in" due to the great, inviting nature of the "in the beginning" moment, and there was only one for our observable universe.

Unfortunately, pre-BBT becomes very muddy once the jump is made, so I'm disinterested in jumping in, too.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, "That literally means the Universe doesn't exist if we go by that logic."

Please explain.


Helio, am I not right in thinking that the closer you get to the *so called" singularity, the less is understood and the greater the problems. I quoted this recently.
I cannot see, in the light of this ignorance (not the most eloquent expression) that it is possible, and imho more likely that there is a passage through where the "singularity" is "located". I do not believe that can be disproved, just as the infinite/singularity etcetera cannot be disproved.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio: "There is no physics, IMO, at t=0, only metaphysics, pseudoscience, and lots of word salad and hand-waving. " which, in my view includes t=0 and singularities. We do not know, close to "t = 0) how it works. Cat

P.S. "There is no physics, IMO, at t=0" Well, you said so yourself, and I agree.

 

[Helio]

Helio, am I not right in thinking that the closer you get to the *so called" singularity, the less is understood and the greater the problems. I quoted this recently.

Yes, and look what happens to the actual equations of physics when it attempts results just after 1 Planck unit of time. Those results, reportedly, shoot off into infinity. As at least one physicist describes it, "The wheels of the wagon go flying off!" I think we both agree this is where science ends and pseudoscience takes advantage of this for all the fun they think is there.

I cannot see, in the light of this ignorance (not the most eloquent expression) that it is possible, and imho more likely that there is a passage through where the "singularity" is "located". I do not believe that can be disproved, just as the infinite/singularity etcetera cannot be disproved.

Just remember that you have now gone past the "infinity zone of science", as perhaps we should call it. [I'm teasing you , of course, given your disdain for infinity. ]

 

[Helio]

Helio: "There is no physics, IMO, at t=0, only metaphysics, pseudoscience, and lots of word salad and hand-waving. " which, in my view includes t=0 and singularities. We do not know, close to "t = 0) how it works. Cat

P.S. "There is no physics, IMO, at t=0" Well, you said so yourself, and I agree.

Right, and I'm confident that we have no hard science that can address singularities of any kind. Perhaps the metaphysics that does attempt to address it has merit, but what if it never becomes hard science and never testable?

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I understand your disdain for pseudoscience. I accept that, most wholeheartedly. BUT don't forget that one of those mad flights of imagination will most probably be the accepted "truth".

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, I understand your disdain for pseudoscience. I accept that, most wholeheartedly. BUT don't forget that one of those mad flights of imagination will most probably be the accepted "truth".

Cat

Agreed, and I have said so a number of times, as in post 36, "Some of the later [metaphysics] could lead us somewhere, admittedly, but most can't. "

 

[Catastrophe]

You can see that we are overlapping messages. C.

 

[Catastrophe]

Post #44. We are in total agreement

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I agree that it is pure speculation, but a nexus, in place of the singularity is as good as any, I believe. I do not like singularities! Infinite everything? Ugh!

Cat

 

[IG2007]

IG, "That literally means the Universe doesn't exist if we go by that logic."

Please explain.

If n = n + 1, and n is an impossibility, then if we apply this logic to the question "what is outside the Universe?", then doesn't the Universe too become an impossibility by this logic?

 

[Catastrophe]

No. Are you suggesting n + 1 Universes?

 

[IG2007]

No.

How?