Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Big Bang "Singularity"

  1. #1 Big Bang "Singularity" 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    124
    The initial singularity could not have been infinitesimally small since an infinite time would be needed to expand it into finite size. Since only finite time has elapsed since the big bang and it expanded to a finite size the initial "singularity" could not have had infinitesimal size.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    The initial singularity could not have been infinitesimally small since an infinite time would be needed to expand it into finite size. Since only finite time has elapsed since the big bang and it expanded to a finite size the initial "singularity" could not have had infinitesimal size.
    Attempting to contradict mathematics with "common sense" is doomed to failure.

    However, I don't think anyone considers the singularity to represent physical reality; it just indicates that the theory no longer works. So your objections are irrelevant anyway.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,393
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    The initial singularity could not have been infinitesimally small since an infinite time would be needed to expand it into finite size. Since only finite time has elapsed since the big bang and it expanded to a finite size the initial "singularity" could not have had infinitesimal size.
    By that argument it is impossible for a car to accelerate from a velocity of zero.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    By that argument it is impossible for a car to accelerate from a velocity of zero.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,308
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    The initial singularity could not have been infinitesimally small since an infinite time would be needed to expand it into finite size. Since only finite time has elapsed since the big bang and it expanded to a finite size the initial "singularity" could not have had infinitesimal size.
    By that argument it is impossible for a car to accelerate from a velocity of zero.
    I was going to make exactly the same post (it had been on my mind for the last day or so) but I hesitated, as my mind wandered into tortoise/hare territory and it seemed a bit far fetched to apply that reasoning to the question of the origin of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I was going to make exactly the same post (it had been on my mind for the last day or so) but I hesitated, as my mind wandered into tortoise/hare territory and it seemed a bit far fetched to apply that reasoning to the question of the origin of the universe.
    I'm pretty sure that *anything* you post will make more sense than even the most sensible posts by the OP!
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,393
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    The initial singularity could not have been infinitesimally small since an infinite time would be needed to expand it into finite size. Since only finite time has elapsed since the big bang and it expanded to a finite size the initial "singularity" could not have had infinitesimal size.
    By that argument it is impossible for a car to accelerate from a velocity of zero.
    I was going to make exactly the same post (it had been on my mind for the last day or so) but I hesitated, as my mind wandered into tortoise/hare territory and it seemed a bit far fetched to apply that reasoning to the question of the origin of the universe.
    This kind of argument is only valid when the rate of change depends on the size of the thing itself, i.e. exponential growth. An exponential approaches zero asymptotically, i.e. never actually reaches it. So you can't start from zero and follow an exponential growth path.

    However there is no reason, so far as I am aware, to think this would apply to the universe at the Big Bang, any more than it applies to the acceleration of a car.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Similarly, there are mathematical functions that go to infinity in a finite "time" (distance along the X axis) so the argument that a finite universe cannot become infinite is also not necessarily true.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    124
    I was using: lim_{x->0} (kx) = 0.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    I was using: lim_{x->0} (kx) = 0.
    1. Who cares.

    2. As you have not defined what k or x are, this is irrelevant.

    3. Why would you both to take limits for a simple product, anyway? kx is well defined for x = 0; it is 0.

    It is almost as if you don't know what you are talking about. No, that's wrong. It is exactly as if you don't know what you are talking about.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    124
    kx = tx is the scale of the universe at present, x is the original size.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,998
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum46 View Post
    kx = tx is the scale of the universe at present, x is the original size.
    So k = t. Apart from that, this is a meaningless equation with no evidential or theoretical basis.

    It also leaves me wondering why use k instead of t? In addition to the idiotic and unnecessary use of limits.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. An alternative to the "big bang", “black hole”, “ideal gas”
    By socratus in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 27th, 2014, 06:41 AM
  2. The Essence of Big Bang and "Galactic Alignment"
    By Seventh in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 24th, 2012, 08:20 AM
  3. Is the "Big Bang Theory" stolen?
    By Attiyah Zahdeh in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 28th, 2011, 02:42 AM
  4. comprehending the "nothing" of pre-big bang
    By schiz0yd in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 6th, 2010, 09:22 AM
  5. is the big bang just a "concept"?
    By theQuestIsNotOver in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 04:28 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •