The Big Bang is not the beginning of time

[Ramen King]

There is no way to confirm that our Big Bang was the beginning of time as there is no way to know whether or not there were previous Big Bangs and universes before the current Big Bang universe; or that there are currently other Big Bangs/Universes far far away from our own Big Bang/Universe.

 

[-Jumpman-]

MuraRengan, how long are you going to deny the expansion of space? It's a widely accepted scientific theory, there's no reason to argue its validity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

 

[Ussi]

He's not denying it, he's just saying there is a finite amount of space and the universe can't expand past it

 

[-Jumpman-]

Based on? Theres no reason arguing anything related either.

 

[MuraRengan]

MuraRengan, how long are you going to deny the expansion of space? It's a widely accepted scientific theory, there's no reason to argue its validity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

No reason to argue its validity? I guess you can say that if you're the kind of person who doesn't bother to understand things for yourself.

I'm not denying anything. I never said that the expansion of space wasn't true. I said that I don't believe it because I haven't seen any convincing evidence and because it doesn't make sense to me.

Now in the wake of wikipedia article you just posted, I'll ask you to aid me in understanding the theory. What specifically on that page supports the idea that space itself expanding as opposed to the universe expanding into already existing space? I'm not asking this as a challenge, I'm asking this because I want to understand, because if the information on this page supports the expansion of space, I must not have understood something important because I'm not seeing a direct link to expansion of space.

 

[-Jumpman-]

I was implying there's no reason you argue it, because you do not seem to have the scientific foundation necessary to come to relevant conclusions. It's really a non-discussion arguing spacetime is expanding into existing space if you do not know what you're talking about. This is not a philosophical discussion, so provide a scientific foundation for your assertions or don't bother arguing them.

Initially, I wanted to avoid ad hominem arguments, but considering you have no objection to them, I think my post is justified. To emphasize, this discussion is a scientific one, not a philosophical one. Try to avoid confusing them.

 

[MuraRengan]

I was implying there's no reason you argue it, because you do not seem to have the scientific foundation necessary to come to relevant conclusions. It's really a non-discussion arguing spacetime is expanding into existing space if you do not know what you're talking about. This is not a philosophical discussion, so provide a scientific foundation for your assertions or don't bother arguing them.

Initially, I wanted to avoid ad hominem arguments, but considering you have no objection to them, I think my post is justified. To emphasize, this discussion is a scientific one, not a philosophical one. Try to avoid confusing them.

I'm not confusing them at all. I'm addressing a scientific problem from a philosophical standpoint. The two are not mutually exclusive so long as the philosophical standpoint understands and/or acknowledges scientific knowledge. You're basically trying to say that I can't question science if I don't have science to back it up. But historically, a lot of important scientific knowledge was found because someone initially thought that modern science was wrong (Galileo, Lucretius, Einstein.) My lack of science here doesn't make this wrong, nor does it make this any less worth talking about. If you had just done as I asked and helped me to understand the theory, then maybe we wouldn't still be on this point. But it seems you just want to avoid this debate altogether, and it's probably because you don't understand the theory yourself.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Galileo and Einstein both used purely scientific methodology to prove the modern science [of their time] wrong. Lucretius - as far as I'm aware - did not prove anything wrong using the tools of scientific methodology. There is no philosophy included in any that.

There's nothing wrong with arguing the validity of a theory in itself but if you actually choose to do so you should at least be able to come up with a valid theory of your own - a theory that makes predictions that can be falsified or backed-up with empirical evidence. One, that can describe the phenomena explained by the theory of gravity without using more assumptions/variables than the tog does. If you can't do that then your attemps to "prove" it wrong is just pure esotericism.

 

[GwJ]

There is no way to confirm that our Big Bang was the beginning of time as there is no way to know whether or not there were previous Big Bangs and universes before the current Big Bang universe; or that there are currently other Big Bangs/Universes far far away from our own Big Bang/Universe.

Though scientists don't explicitly state it, they're talking about the beginning of time for this particular universe.

I think Stephen Hawking said this (might be wrong, someone correct me if I am): "Anything before the big bang could not affect what happened after."

What this means is that due to the nature of the big bang as we have defined it, even if there existed another universe prior to this latest big bang, it wouldn't matter because whatever universe existed before could have no influence on the current one.

 

[Ramen King]

I dig. It's a silly definition of the beginning of time, however.


You all may find this of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1GCf29FPM4k

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Hello! I don't think that space-time began at the Big Bang. We do not (yet) have a theory of quantum gravity, so we cannot predict how matter/energy behaves when all of it is crammed into a tiny space. I agree with the consensus that a changeless universe is a timeless one, due to Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles, but it is possible that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of it all.

EDIT: I'm also curious whether there is scientific evidence for:

due to the nature of the big bang as we have defined it, even if there existed another universe prior to this latest big bang, it wouldn't matter because whatever universe existed before could have no influence on the current one.