More on the Big Bang - what was before t = 0?

[Atlan0001]

The speed of light doesn't vary. Relativity breaks down. An entity can appear to be getting closer and ever closer to the speed of light while never getting to it. The actual entity, the material versus the SPACETIME holographic immaterial, is long. long, gone in position (Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty (principle of indeterminacy)) from where it is observed to asymptotically be slowing. and slowing, and slowing.... eventually to relatively disappear into a point of SPACETIME . . . never having been observed to reach the speed of light but reaching somewhere else in position in space.

Definition of ASYMPTOTE

a straight line associated with a curve such that as a point moves along an infinite branch of the curve the distance from the point to the line approaches zero and the slope of the curve at the point approaches the slope of the line… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

General topology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Gibsense]

Let's take a look at the point I am making. There are claims that the universe is expanding at a speed greater than light. I suggested that one could visualize a balloon that had a series of dots on the balloon that could represent the universe expanding at the speed of light, as was the claim. I showed that as the balloon expanded the solar system moved apart. The intent was to demonstrate that if there was infinite energy to expand the universe at the speed of light there would be enough energy to tear apart the solar system. And yes my theory is as bad as the theory that would require the universe is expanding at speeds as great as 2.99 x 10^10 meters per second. Both ideas are unlikely, that was the point. I am sorry I was not clear.

There are a number of misunderstandings. Some are my fault.

1. The Hubble Constant describes the Space of the universe expansion (and this is not the speed of light unless you mean the radius )
2. A uniform radial increase of a spherical universe at the speed of light is a mirror of a black hole (The same object but with time running in reverse)
3. Bear in mind such a model representation would be a hypersphere ( I consider that is what we are on/in)
4. We can only observe the space of the universe for as far away that the recessional velocity does not exceed the speed of light hence 'Observable Universe'
5. I only 'spell things out' to be sure we are talking about the same things
6. However, you now appear to me to be saying that the energy involved in producing the expansion of the universe (Dark Energy) is enough to separate galaxies (dots on your balloon) - maybe you mean Dark Energy (?)
7. Further, the expansion applies to the solar system. Well yes, it does BUT gravity counteracts this. I tried to show how by the Gravity Well sketch I posted earlier. This happens with all things existing in a broader gravity well e.g. a galactic cluster.
8. NB i.m.o. the curvature of the universe determines the limit at which objects can be considered as part of a common gravity well
9. Again i.m.o. the curvature of the universe causes Dark Energy (in association with a time process)

Apologies for 8 and 9 they are a different debate I could not resist.

I am aware of the amount of energy required to accelerate a mass to the speed of light. In fact that is the point I am making. I am sorry I confused you.
You claim that dark matter exists but have no proof.
I am not mixing two different things, you are confused.
I suggest you read my paper on the origin of the big bang on figshare.

Re mass at speed, apology accepted.
I made no claim I just stated the standard position for which there is some evidence (proof ?)
RE confusion, ok, are you talking about Dark Energy (the label)?
I will have a look at Figshare (new to me)

 

[Gibsense]

I suggest you read my paper on the origin of the big bang on figshare.

I have read your paper on 'figshare'. Written so I could appreciate where you are coming from!

Philosophy and Cosmology mix. I agree with its broad scope - not everything - but most in principle. You discuss the Primind model as an idea that tries to explain the universe's life cycle in a big-picture way. It combines the Big Bang and inflation theories and takes a further step by suggesting the universe comes from "recursive nothingness"—a kind of potential that can turn into everything we see.

You have a zero sum approach (your paper I read the intro). This triggered an idea in support (mentioned later). The idea that the universe balances out the 'potential over time'. I took this to mean that taking a positive from nothing is balanced (over time) by a negative. Hence it is possible to gain a universe from 'nothing at all'.

I think that TIME is the key
We think of 'before and after' whereas the universe may consider time (all of it) as just a description as you scan through relationships. In other words, the universe regards its beginning and end as the same thing (instantaneous)
In this way, the positive and the negative are the same sum. 1-1=0 and thereby validate to have 'something for a while' which is basically your recursive universe.

This is hinted at by Virtual Particles that spontaneously appear and disappear in the vacuum of space. Now this is the thing - time is taken between their appearance and their disappearance. If this were not the case there would have been "nothing". It is as if the ability to have something depends on time. Time validates the zero sum.

A whole new perspective! Must read some more of your papers to see what might emerge

 

[Gibsense]

Russell Crawford's 'Broad brush' approach leads to new perspectives on understanding the universe. His comments have forced me to review my ideas regarding 'Time' and to attempt to connect more dots. Philosophy has a part to play it seems.

Thanks to Cat for starting this thread (but we still disagree about a division by zero) Lol!

 

[Catastrophe]

Looking back, the question might be rephrased "What (if anything) was before t = 0? as an event".

Division by 0, whether valid or not mathematically, seems totally irrelevant, since t = 0 is a philosophical (metaphysical) statement, not a mathematical equation. According to some, t = 0 equates to a (non-existent) "singularity". To others, it might represent a (non-zero) inflection in a cyclic system.

Even mathematically, it might be regarded as a co-ordinate of the origin in a graph.
In this case, there is no compulsion to ascribe real meaning to negative values.

IMHO, there is no case where it can be legitimately regarded as a divisor. In any case, as OP, I, in no way, intended such.

If, as suggested, t = 0 is defined as an event (or state) then the question comes to mean "Did the Universe exist before the onset of expansion?" which might mean "Is the Universe cyclic?".

As an aside:

Apparently my last sentence is incorrect. I suggest that the alternative is worse English. It would be different to omit the ?, as "Is the Universe cyclic" is a question and deserves to be treated as such.
Full stop and question mark in the same sentence is apparently wrong. Any comments please?

Cat