What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[danot]

You did- here

 

 

 

my reply being-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said above, expressing personal views does not amount to trolling, the reasons you're seen as a troll are as I explained above.

 

 

 

 

What does that mean??? Why would you assume that we're going to know what you mean when you come out with these lines? Why don't you make an effort and clarify these lines so people have half a chance of knowing what you're talking about?

 

Again, this is something you've done throughout the thread and is another reason you're seen as trolling- you're in a debate, so communication is key- your use of lines like that and, your use of standard logical terms but with your own personal meaning/definitions, is the source of the confusion that surrounds most of your posts.

 

In response to your first point, I'm not admitting I'm talking nonsense.. you're the one who's accusing me of that. What I said is:- "I'm aware my claim makes no sense, but having said that, neither does the alternative". - Which clearly implies that neither claim,ie(A:the logical conclusion that the universe does not need to be contained - or B:the alternative; 'the universe can exist without being contained')make any sense to me. I fail to see how that equates to talking nonsense.

 

Secondly, why is my Theory as opposed to theory comment confusing you?

 

The two are apparently considered(for reasons unbeknown to me)to be different; don't ask me why cos I don't know.

[danot]

Why are they viewed differently? Because they are different things

But what makes them different?. T?

[splodgeyAl]

But what makes them different?. T?

 

The dictionary says:

 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

1, 2 and 3 refer to the scientific definition (T), while 4, 5 and 6 refer to the lay definition (t).

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

 

More on the scientific definition, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[danot]

The dictionary says:

 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

1, 2 and 3 refer to the scientific definition (T), while 4, 5 and 6 refer to the lay definition (t).

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

 

More on the scientific definition, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

That only tells me how theories are applied, and to what they are applicable to, but I asked what makes the two different?.. all theories are conjecture until proven otherwise, so what's the key difference between Theory and theory? What I mean is:- why isn't there just one type of theory?. I'm not being ar$ey with you, I just want to know what it is that makes one a theory and the other a Theory?

[splodgeyAl]

That only tells me how theories are applied, and to what they are applicable to, but I asked what makes the two different?.. all theories are conjecture until proven otherwise, so what's the key difference between Theory and theory? What I mean is:- why isn't there just one type of theory?. I'm not being ar$ey with you, I just want to know what it is that makes one a theory and the other a Theory?

 

I'm not being arsey either, but are you really saying that you cannot see the difference between

 

* A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

and

 

* An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

 

?

[danot]

I'm not being arsey either, but are you really saying that you cannot see the difference between

 

* A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

and

 

* An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

 

?

Taken from the link you provided:-

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only hypothesis, you can never prove it".

 

I fail to see the difference.

[plekhanov]

That only tells me how theories are applied, and to what they are applicable to, but I asked what makes the two different?.. all theories are conjecture until proven otherwise, so what's the key difference between Theory and theory? What I mean is:- why isn't there just one type of theory?. I'm not being ar$ey with you, I just want to know what it is that makes one a theory and the other a Theory?

You might as well ask:

 

"why isn't there just one" definition for every word in the dictionary?

 

"Theory" is hardly unusual in that it has several meanings. For example you are currently posting drivel in the "General Forum" both of those terms have more than 1 meaning:

 

Forum

1. Roman Antiquities. The public place or market-place of a city; the place of assembly for judicial and other business, esp. at Rome. LME.

b. A place of or meeting for public discussion; a periodical etc. which provides an opportunity for conducting a debate. M18.

 

2. A court, a tribunal (lit. & fig.). L17.

 

General

A. adjective.

 

1. Including, involving, or affecting all or nearly all the parts of a (specified or implied) whole, as a territory, community, organization, etc.; completely or nearly universal; not partial, particular, local, or sectional. ME.

 

† b. Belonging or pertaining in common to. LME–M17.

 

c. With collect. or pl. noun: all, collective, whole. obsolete exc. in general body. L16.

 

2. Chief, head; having unrestricted authority. LME.

 

b. Military. Having superior rank and extended command; spec. (of an officer) above the rank of a colonel. L16.

 

3. Pertaining to or current among the majority; prevalent, widespread, usual, common. LME.

 

4. Not specifically limited in application; relating to a whole class of objects, cases, occasions, etc.; (of a rule, law, etc.) true for all or nearly all cases coming under its terms. LME.

 

b. Indefinite, imprecise; vague. E17.

 

5. Including the main features, elements, etc., and neglecting or ignoring unimportant details or exceptions. M16.

 

b. Of a name, term, concept, etc.: intended to include or cover those features common to the individuals of a class and neglect the differences. M16.

 

6. Not restricted to one field, class or area; not specialized; concerned with or skilled in all the branches of a particular business or activity (freq. used preceding an agent-noun esp. of employment). Formerly also, widely accomplished. M16.

 

Why are you making such a big deal out of "theory" like "general", "forum" and many other words having more than a single definition? Are you really so dumb not never before have realised that this is really rather common in the English language?

[danot]

You might as well ask:

 

"why isn't there just one" definition for every word in the dictionary?

 

"Theory" is hardly unusual in that it has several meanings. For example you are currently posting drivel in the "General Forum" both of those terms have more than 1 meaning:

 

Forum

1. Roman Antiquities. The public place or market-place of a city; the place of assembly for judicial and other business, esp. at Rome. LME.

b. A place of or meeting for public discussion; a periodical etc. which provides an opportunity for conducting a debate. M18.

 

2. A court, a tribunal (lit. & fig.). L17.

 

General

A. adjective.

 

1. Including, involving, or affecting all or nearly all the parts of a (specified or implied) whole, as a territory, community, organization, etc.; completely or nearly universal; not partial, particular, local, or sectional. ME.

 

† b. Belonging or pertaining in common to. LME–M17.

 

c. With collect. or pl. noun: all, collective, whole. obsolete exc. in general body. L16.

 

2. Chief, head; having unrestricted authority. LME.

 

b. Military. Having superior rank and extended command; spec. (of an officer) above the rank of a colonel. L16.

 

3. Pertaining to or current among the majority; prevalent, widespread, usual, common. LME.

 

4. Not specifically limited in application; relating to a whole class of objects, cases, occasions, etc.; (of a rule, law, etc.) true for all or nearly all cases coming under its terms. LME.

 

b. Indefinite, imprecise; vague. E17.

 

5. Including the main features, elements, etc., and neglecting or ignoring unimportant details or exceptions. M16.

 

b. Of a name, term, concept, etc.: intended to include or cover those features common to the individuals of a class and neglect the differences. M16.

 

6. Not restricted to one field, class or area; not specialized; concerned with or skilled in all the branches of a particular business or activity (freq. used preceding an agent-noun esp. of employment). Formerly also, widely accomplished. M16.

 

Why are you making such a big deal out of "theory" like "general", "forum" and many other words having more than a single definition? Are you really so dumb not never before have realised that this is really rather common in the English language?

You obviously haven't noticed, we're talking about the BB Theory... not the BB theory. Does that give you a clue?

[Lucifer]

Yes, I know the obvious answer is,'nothing existed before the big bang; how could it?.. but to accept that theory defies logical. Something must have existed before the singularity, which went on to form our universe exploded/expanded(whatever)into being.

 

How could time and space not exist before this; well I'll accept that time couldn't exist before it, but space must have, or at least something to the affect of space must have existed to allow the expansion of the singularity.

 

So does anyone have any theories on this cos it's mind-boggling.

 

There must have been someone there to light the fuse!

[splodgeyAl]

Taken from the link you provided:-

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only hypothesis, you can never prove it".

 

I fail to see the difference.

 

The difference is that the lower case one is based on assumptions, while the upper case one is based on repeatedly tested mathematical formula, observations, experiments.

 

Scientists know that it is very difficult to actually prove anything. And they like to work with the most accurate information they have, very few scientific theories have been promoted beyond that status.

 

While you seem to think that anything labelled a theory should be absolutely rock-solid proof. That's not how the universe works.

 

This bit from the article's Hawkins quote is more pertinent than the bit you quoted

On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory

So a scientific theory falls apart as soon as observations contradict the theory. Unlike, say, a bunch a assumptions.