No, the rapid expansion is the point where we are confident our physics and assumptions hold up. Before that instant, we DO NOT KNOW, the physics break down. Although there are many interesting proposals by physicists. We need more study, more data, more research. For example, the physics indicates that we may be able to detect an “event” within the Cosmic Microwave Background.
David has it right. The expansion point contained the entirety of the observable universe.
If something is expanding, or getting bigger, that means at some point it began to expand.
You really are having difficulty with this statement are you not? You are (and obviously) trying to weasel the “began” concept into the conversation. Grow the fuck up.
But you do know it has to come from something.
I agree.
But we must be careful to determine when the expansion began, and what drove it. We must not make unevidenced claims. That is why I continually state that before the rapid expansion, we do not know.
Ok, at least we agree on this.
1 Like
No, I don’t “KNOW” that at all, and, dear boy, NEITHER DO YOU.
In our universe, something has always come from something, otherwise something from nothing is logically impossible. Do we agree?
Now you are mixing a human construct (logic) with a physical event that resulted in the observable universe. WE DO NOT KNOW. Is this so terribly hard for your tired brain to comprehend?
I’m asking you that do you agree something always comes from something?
I have no idea whether “always” is going to be true, or was true under every given circumstance in the universe especially in Planck time.
You can play all the 5th grade word games you want. You are no closer to a Creator/god/great Banana than you were when you started posting. WE DO NOT KNOW.
Why do you have no idea wether it’s always going to be true during plank time?
NO ONE KNOWS what happens in Planck Time…read a book.
We do not know because we do not have an example (of “nothing”) for reference.
Can you please recommend me a book about plank time?
Nothing is the absence of something.
Thank you for the recommendation. I just found a copy online.
Yes, in the sense of suggests,but not in the sense of leading to a logical inference.
To use a cliche; A watch implies a watch maker, it does not allow the logical inference of a watchmaker.
inference
(ˈɪnfərəns; -frəns)
n
1. the act or process of inferring
2. an inferred conclusion, deduction, etc
3. (Logic) any process of reasoning from premises to a conclusion
4. (Logic) logic the specific mode of reasoning used. See also deduction4, induction4