What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[Grahame]

Absolute nothingness i.e. a total absense of anything, can clearly never have an effect on bodies around it, as, if it's absolute nothingness, there can be no bodies around it.

 

If there's something there, then clearly, what you're thinking about, is not nothingness.

 

Then why are you talking about 'nothing' because by your own admission nothing cannot exist?

[Karis]

Then why are you talking about 'nothing' because by your own admission nothing cannot exist?

 

HELLO!!! How many times have I said that?

 

He he he!

[onewheeldave]

Then why are you talking about 'nothing' because by your own admission nothing cannot exist?

 

No- it cannot exist in our universe/space-time.

 

We're talking about nothingness existing, as some put it 'before' the big-bang, or, perhaps more acurately, outside of the context of our space-time.

 

Specifically, Hawking seemed to be claiming that the universe could create itself out of 'nothing'- which i personally have serious doubts about.

 

Nevertheless, to discuss that possibility, it's necessary to clarify what nothingness is.

[artisan]

A CRT tube has a vacuum inside it, i.e. nothing, but when it implodes the effects can be as devastating as a small explosion, so although a vacuum is nothing, it has power/energy?

 

A vacuum is not nothing.

It is space in which there is no matter.

That is not nothing, it is a very definite space, which can be filled.

The state that existed prior to the so called big bang was non existence.

Space, time and matter did not exist.

The only place they existed was in the 'mind' of the creator, what ever that was.

[Grahame]

No- it cannot exist in our universe/space-time.

 

We're talking about nothingness existing, as some put it 'before' the big-bang, or, perhaps more acurately, outside of the context of our space-time.

 

Specifically, Hawking seemed to be claiming that the universe could create itself out of 'nothing'- which i personally have serious doubts about.

 

Nevertheless, to discuss that possibility, it's necessary to clarify what nothingness is.

 

Is there more than one universe?

[Karis]

Probably not multiple universes, but there may be lots of higher dimensions.

 

Isn't one vast universe enough for you?

 

Edit: there are more theories on the nature of the universe than I've had hot dinners, but it's all total conjecture.

[Grahame]

A vacuum is not nothing.

It is space in which there is no matter.

That is not nothing, it is a very definite space, which can be filled.

The state that existed prior to the so called big bang was non existence.

Space, time and matter did not exist.

The only place they existed was in the 'mind' of the creator, what ever that was.

 

That's nice and succinct artisan. Thanks.

 

So there wasn't empty space (like a hole) and there was nothing surrounding it, so no balloon type thing, no gravity, no magnetism, no atmosphere and yet here we are.

 

Now there's food for thought!

[Grahame]

Probably not multiple universes, but there may be lots of higher dimensions.

 

Isn't one vast universe enough for you?

 

Edit: there are more theories on the nature of the universe than I've had hot dinners, but it's all total conjecture.

 

I like your honesty Karis.

[danot]

Danot, your posts make absolutely no sense and are impossible to follow. I have no idea why you emboldened that part of my sentence...

In that case, I'll be more than happy to explain why I emboldened your sentence. You claimed that certain posters were following the bizarre practice of assuming that "nothing"(with regards to the nothingness before time and space existed) is in fact "something". That's why I emboldened !a bizarre practice in your sentence.

 

I was assuming that the reason you found it to be a "bizarre practice" was because the laws of science(or the laws which humans apply to the known universe, the laws on which all of our scientific theories are founded and governed)doesn't uphold the views of certain posters, that something might have existed before time and space existed.

 

The scientific opinion is that something cannot have existed before time and space existed, which appears to be the view you hold. If this is the case, then there are certain posters who share your view(that something cannot have existed before time and space existed), they also claim that it would be foolish to apply the rules of our scientific laws to the "nothingness" before time and space existed, because the "nothingness may not be governed by the same laws which govern our universe.

 

Therefore, how do those posters reach the conclusion that something cannot have existed before time and space existed?.

 

They reach that conclusion by applying human logic to the "nothingness" that existed before time and space existed, which in my opinion, is more bizarre that applying the laws of the known universe.

 

What I'm saying is:- How can you/they discredit the claims of other posters discussing this subject; for continuing to apply scientific laws which govern the known universe, when you(amongst others)continue to apply the rules of human logic in order to discredit their claims?

 

If the laws of science don't apply to the "nothingness", then why should the rules of logic?. Do you understand now Karis?

 

Posted by Karis

Perhaps you should consider giving up on this topic as it's clear you cannot fathom the concepts put forward to you and you just want to argue the point ad infinitum.

Perhaps you're right Karis... perhaps.

[Karis]

Wow, long post

 

But I was saying it was bizarre to add "full stop" to a sentence to give it some kind of weight.

 

It's weird. FACT (joke)!