Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

[sealybobo]

I also don't believe the First Five Books. According to both Jewish and Christian Dogma, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (the first five books of the Bible and the entirety of the Torah) were all written by Moses in about 1,300 B.C.

 

[hadit]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.

No there was always energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so there never was nothing and there never will be nothing.

Let's explore that. All the energy of the universe (because there was no matter) was contained in a singularity that had nothing to restrain it from expanding (because none of the forces, including gravity, existed, even time). Is that what you're saying?

That naturally leads to the inevitable question, what put all that energy in that state if forces like gravity didn't exist to pull it together and hold it?

I think it's at least safe to say there was nothing, and no energy, in the universe because the universe itself didn't exist. The energy then had to come from outside the universe. It had to be placed in that singularity so it could expand.

And remember, we cannot allow any intelligence to be guiding any of this.

Not true. We now know that deep dark empty space has charged particles that come in and out of existence. It really is miraculous.

But we know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since particles are actually a form of energy, that means that the existing energy of the universe is spontaneously condensing into particles that perfectly match each other with the exception that they are anti-particles to each other, so they immediately destroy each other. It is miraculous indeed how they do that little disappearing act. Trust us, we're here. Oops, gotta look faster.

Now it gets interesting when the particles pop into existence on the edge of a black hole's event horizon and one gets sucked into the black hole while the other wanders off into the universe. Hawking was very interested in that.

As for the singularity that launched the big bang, it wasn't in the universe because the universe didn't exist.

 

[hadit]

It just goes to show sealybobo has no idea about the Bible. First and foremost, it is God's word so that is the ultimate knowledge. It says the universe is like a scroll. Ancient peoples would understand this just like we do today. A scroll is flat, curved at the top and bottom edges and is bounded. Science showed that the universe is flat when many thought it was saddle shaped. The creation scientists are waiting for the curved edges to be shown as the curvature of space time and the bounded universe with edges at the boundary. It means that our galaxy is at the center and not centerless.

I can only hope that sealybobo believes in God one day and realizes that if God created the universe and everything in it, then this isn't the real world. It's God's world that is the real world and this is just an illusion. This is all in the mind.

The Bible is gods word? That’s not true but shows how delusional you are. The Bible was written by men who never even met jesus

That's disengenuous. The entire Old Testament was written before He assumed human form as Messiah. There are actually only a few books written by those who met him.

What books?

I know you're eager to say the gospels weren't written as first hand accounts, but the first three, and the book of Revelation, were. Like was written by the doctor who accompanied Paul on his trips. It is possible that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he didn't mention it, and that would have been something he probably would have.

No they weren't. And I love it how it doesn't even dawn on Christians that God/Jesus/and His Apostles did not write the bible.

In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of Patmos with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.

Bible scholar Bart Ehrman began his studies at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Originally an evangelical Christian, Ehrman believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But later, as a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman started reading the Bible with a more historical approach and analyzing contradictions in the Gospels.

Ehrman, the author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them),

These differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.

Naturally Jesus didn't write the Bible, He's the central figure in it. And to pretend it's somehow significant that the Apostles didn't write the majority of the Bible (being that the Old Testament was written long before they were born), is just disengenuous. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here anyway, given that only a few books are even claimed to be written by those with first hand experience with Jesus. Does it make you feel better somehow to continue?

 

[james bond]

Now it gets interesting when the particles pop into existence on the edge of a black hole's event horizon and one gets sucked into the black hole while the other wanders off into the universe. This is known as Hawking radiation. As for the singularity that launched the big bang, it wasn't in the universe because the universe didn't exist.

Hawking radiation was never demonstrated. Regular physics got in the way. It may still be able to be observed in a lab environment at CERN, but they would have to create a miniature black hole first. The regular physics tests to show it existed all ended up with problems.

 

[sealybobo]

Except it doesn’t say the universe is flat. And even if it did, how did they come up with this knowledge before telescopes?

It just goes to show sealybobo has no idea about the Bible. First and foremost, it is God's word so that is the ultimate knowledge. It says the universe is like a scroll. Ancient peoples would understand this just like we do today. A scroll is flat, curved at the top and bottom edges and is bounded. Science showed that the universe is flat when many thought it was saddle shaped. The creation scientists are waiting for the curved edges to be shown as the curvature of space time and the bounded universe with edges at the boundary. It means that our galaxy is at the center and not centerless.

I can only hope that sealybobo believes in God one day and realizes that if God created the universe and everything in it, then this isn't the real world. It's God's world that is the real world and this is just an illusion. This is all in the mind.

The Bible is gods word? That’s not true but shows how delusional you are. The Bible was written by men who never even met jesus

That's disengenuous. The entire Old Testament was written before He assumed human form as Messiah. There are actually only a few books written by those who met him.

What books?

I know you're eager to say the gospels weren't written as first hand accounts, but the first three, and the book of Revelation, were. Like was written by the doctor who accompanied Paul on his trips. It is possible that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he didn't mention it, and that would have been something he probably would have.

The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus. Although Paul the Apostle provides relatively little biographical information about Jesus and states that he never knew Jesus personally, he does make it clear that he considers Jesus to have been a real person and a Jew. Moreover, he claims to have met with James, the brother of Jesus.

scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them,[58] what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later.

There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian


Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.

Who saw Jesus and was still alive 100 years to write about it?

Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 90–110.

 

[sealybobo]

The Bible is gods word? That’s not true but shows how delusional you are. The Bible was written by men who never even met jesus

That's disengenuous. The entire Old Testament was written before He assumed human form as Messiah. There are actually only a few books written by those who met him.

What books?

I know you're eager to say the gospels weren't written as first hand accounts, but the first three, and the book of Revelation, were. Like was written by the doctor who accompanied Paul on his trips. It is possible that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he didn't mention it, and that would have been something he probably would have.

No they weren't. And I love it how it doesn't even dawn on Christians that God/Jesus/and His Apostles did not write the bible.

In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of Patmos with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.

Bible scholar Bart Ehrman began his studies at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Originally an evangelical Christian, Ehrman believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But later, as a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman started reading the Bible with a more historical approach and analyzing contradictions in the Gospels.

Ehrman, the author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them),

These differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.

Naturally Jesus didn't write the Bible, He's the central figure in it. And to pretend it's somehow significant that the Apostles didn't write the majority of the Bible (being that the Old Testament was written long before they were born), is just disengenuous. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here anyway, given that only a few books are even claimed to be written by those with first hand experience with Jesus. Does it make you feel better somehow to continue?

I'm Greek. I know how stupid my grandmother was. I can just imagine Paul traveling to Greece and him telling those dumb Greeks the Jesus stories and them falling for it. It blows my mind that anyone would hear the Jesus story and believe it.

 

[hadit]

That's disengenuous. The entire Old Testament was written before He assumed human form as Messiah. There are actually only a few books written by those who met him.

What books?

I know you're eager to say the gospels weren't written as first hand accounts, but the first three, and the book of Revelation, were. Like was written by the doctor who accompanied Paul on his trips. It is possible that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he didn't mention it, and that would have been something he probably would have.

No they weren't. And I love it how it doesn't even dawn on Christians that God/Jesus/and His Apostles did not write the bible.

In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of Patmos with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.

Bible scholar Bart Ehrman began his studies at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Originally an evangelical Christian, Ehrman believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But later, as a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman started reading the Bible with a more historical approach and analyzing contradictions in the Gospels.

Ehrman, the author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them),

These differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.

Naturally Jesus didn't write the Bible, He's the central figure in it. And to pretend it's somehow significant that the Apostles didn't write the majority of the Bible (being that the Old Testament was written long before they were born), is just disengenuous. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here anyway, given that only a few books are even claimed to be written by those with first hand experience with Jesus. Does it make you feel better somehow to continue?

I'm Greek. I know how stupid my grandmother was. I can just imagine Paul traveling to Greece and him telling those dumb Greeks the Jesus stories and them falling for it. It blows my mind that anyone would hear the Jesus story and believe it.

So does it make you feel better about your family?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is miraculous indeed how they do that little disappearing act.

Not at all. It's actually required by quantum mechanics.

 

[edthecynic]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.

No there was always energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so there never was nothing and there never will be nothing.

Let's explore that. All the energy of the universe (because there was no matter) was contained in a singularity that had nothing to restrain it from expanding (because none of the forces, including gravity, existed, even time). Is that what you're saying?

That naturally leads to the inevitable question, what put all that energy in that state if forces like gravity didn't exist to pull it together and hold it?

I think it's at least safe to say there was nothing, and no energy, in the universe because the universe itself didn't exist. The energy then had to come from outside the universe. It had to be placed in that singularity so it could expand.

And remember, we cannot allow any intelligence to be guiding any of this.

But if it is a universe there is no "outside the universe," if it is the universe then it is everything. It always has to come back to energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And as you know the energy of motion contains inertial mass which according to Special Relativity is indistinguishable from gravitational mass.

 

[edthecynic]

without space you cannot have time.

Actually it is without motion you can't have time.

 

[edthecynic]

Time is a condition of a current event.

Time exists ONLY in terms of motion. Distance = speed X time or transposed time = distance/speed, for example.

Close, but no cigar. Motion exists because of time. We know this from particle-wave theory. Space and time had to come first or there would not be quantum or any particles in motion providing energy and entropy.

Energy exists in 3 THREE forms, Kinetic, Potential and Heat, only kinetic energy is the energy of motion, so energy is NOT dependent on motion.

And again, I repeat time exists ONLY in terms of motion, please show me an equation for time that does not involve motion of some kind.

 

[toobfreak]

without space you cannot have time.

Actually it is without motion you can't have time.

Sorry, no. Better think again. Motion was created by the expansion of space. Space is motion. Motion is energy. It takes energy to expand space. All energy is in motion. Without space in motion, there is no vector of time. Before the expansion of space, therre could be no motion, therefore, no time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

without space you cannot have time.

Actually it is without motion you can't have time.

Sorry, no. Better think again. Motion was created by the expansion of space. Space is motion. Motion is energy. It takes energy to expand space. All energy is in motion. Without space in motion, there is no vector of time. Before the expansion of space, therre could be no motion, therefore, no time.

Save for imaginary time.

 

[toobfreak]

without space you cannot have time.

Actually it is without motion you can't have time.

Sorry, no. Better think again. Motion was created by the expansion of space. Space is motion. Motion is energy. It takes energy to expand space. All energy is in motion. Without space in motion, there is no vector of time. Before the expansion of space, therre could be no motion, therefore, no time.

Save for imaginary time.

No, I'll just save you as the Imaginary Expert.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

without space you cannot have time.

Actually it is without motion you can't have time.

Sorry, no. Better think again. Motion was created by the expansion of space. Space is motion. Motion is energy. It takes energy to expand space. All energy is in motion. Without space in motion, there is no vector of time. Before the expansion of space, therre could be no motion, therefore, no time.

Save for imaginary time.

No, I'll just save you as the Imaginary Expert.

Dude, it's not a Trump thread. No need for the tantrums.

Settle down, ya might learn something.

 

[G.T.]

without space you cannot have time.

Actually it is without motion you can't have time.

Sorry, no. Better think again. Motion was created by the expansion of space. Space is motion. Motion is energy. It takes energy to expand space. All energy is in motion. Without space in motion, there is no vector of time. Before the expansion of space, therre could be no motion, therefore, no time.

You just affirmed what he said like 12 times in a single paragraph.

He said "without motion you cant have time."

You went on a diatribe ending in, "no motion, therefore, no time."

You sure go a long way just to argue for no fuckin reason.

 

[hadit]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.

No there was always energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so there never was nothing and there never will be nothing.

Let's explore that. All the energy of the universe (because there was no matter) was contained in a singularity that had nothing to restrain it from expanding (because none of the forces, including gravity, existed, even time). Is that what you're saying?

That naturally leads to the inevitable question, what put all that energy in that state if forces like gravity didn't exist to pull it together and hold it?

I think it's at least safe to say there was nothing, and no energy, in the universe because the universe itself didn't exist. The energy then had to come from outside the universe. It had to be placed in that singularity so it could expand.

And remember, we cannot allow any intelligence to be guiding any of this.

But if it is a universe there is no "outside the universe," if it is the universe then it is everything. It always has to come back to energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And as you know the energy of motion contains inertial mass which according to Special Relativity is indistinguishable from gravitational mass.

Our universe is not infinite. If it was, it could not expand. Now, who is saying that the original singularity was in motion?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Our universe is not infinite.

It seems to be finite, yet boundless.

 

[sealybobo]

What books?

I know you're eager to say the gospels weren't written as first hand accounts, but the first three, and the book of Revelation, were. Like was written by the doctor who accompanied Paul on his trips. It is possible that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh, but he didn't mention it, and that would have been something he probably would have.

No they weren't. And I love it how it doesn't even dawn on Christians that God/Jesus/and His Apostles did not write the bible.

In the case of Revelation, many modern scholars agree that it was written by a separate author, John of Patmos with some parts possibly dating to Nero's reign in the early 60s.

Bible scholar Bart Ehrman began his studies at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. Originally an evangelical Christian, Ehrman believed that the Bible was the inerrant word of God. But later, as a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, Ehrman started reading the Bible with a more historical approach and analyzing contradictions in the Gospels.

Ehrman, the author of Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them),

These differences offer clues into the perspectives of the authors, and the eras in which they wrote their respective Gospels

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul — isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.

Naturally Jesus didn't write the Bible, He's the central figure in it. And to pretend it's somehow significant that the Apostles didn't write the majority of the Bible (being that the Old Testament was written long before they were born), is just disengenuous. I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here anyway, given that only a few books are even claimed to be written by those with first hand experience with Jesus. Does it make you feel better somehow to continue?

I'm Greek. I know how stupid my grandmother was. I can just imagine Paul traveling to Greece and him telling those dumb Greeks the Jesus stories and them falling for it. It blows my mind that anyone would hear the Jesus story and believe it.

So does it make you feel better about your family?

What I think about their intelligence has no impact on my decision

 

[sealybobo]

I am aware of the multiverse theory. I personally think super or ultra massive black holes may be involved but we don't know.

And as I said we'll have to see what other top physicists say about this.

If you understand the Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago how hard is it to understand there was a time 29 billion years ago. That time did exist. This universe may not have existed but time as we know it is eternal.

The Big Bang theory is that everything including time came into existence at that moment. Before that there was nothing.

No there was always energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so there never was nothing and there never will be nothing.

Let's explore that. All the energy of the universe (because there was no matter) was contained in a singularity that had nothing to restrain it from expanding (because none of the forces, including gravity, existed, even time). Is that what you're saying?

That naturally leads to the inevitable question, what put all that energy in that state if forces like gravity didn't exist to pull it together and hold it?

I think it's at least safe to say there was nothing, and no energy, in the universe because the universe itself didn't exist. The energy then had to come from outside the universe. It had to be placed in that singularity so it could expand.

And remember, we cannot allow any intelligence to be guiding any of this.

But if it is a universe there is no "outside the universe," if it is the universe then it is everything. It always has to come back to energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And as you know the energy of motion contains inertial mass which according to Special Relativity is indistinguishable from gravitational mass.

Wrong. Your very first sentence is wrong my brother.

You’re like a tardigrade who can only see what’s inside your drop of water. Your observable universe is all you can see but there’s more beyond. Don’t be ignorant and arrogant at the same time

And the rest of your comment is ramblings I don’t even understand.

Energy can’t be created? Are you sure about that?

There’s so much you don’t know but act like what you think is fact. It’s not