[QUOTE=davar55;364509]The arrogance ( :-) ) of calling the so-called instant of the Big
Bang "t = 0" is evident. If you can't say what preceeeded it, then
maybe you're only talking about "t = 13000000000 yrs" or WHATEVER.

It is neither mysterious nor an epistemological problem, and is in fact
a necessity, to say the Universe has always been here. This is
discusssed in the monograph. The opposite belief, that there was
a beginning or a Creation, is contradictory.[/QUOTE]Why is it a necessity that the universe always has always been here? BTW, BBT does not say that t=0 is the beginning, it just is doesn't describe things before then (which would be hard anyway depending on how time gets its meaning).

[QUOTE=davar55;364509]The arrogance ( :-) ) of calling the so-called instant of the Big
Bang "t = 0" is evident. If you can't say what preceeeded it, then
maybe you're only talking about "t = 13000000000 yrs" or WHATEVER.[/QUOTE]

You have a misunderstanding of current understanding here. No special epidemiological significance is placed on that instant, and Hawking has even discussed what time not after the Big Bang might be like (though not t <= 0 but rather t = x + iy with y nonzero).

I repeat my earlier question:

What is the volume of the skin, actually? Don't just give an approximation that works [I]as if[/I] it was just a spherical shell, give me the actual 4-D content (=hyper-volume). Also good would be a description of the actual shape: is it a hypersolid of rotation, an extruded hypersolid, or something else entirely?

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;364516]You have a misunderstanding of current understanding here. No special epidemiological significance is placed on that instant, and Hawking has even discussed what time not after the Big Bang might be like (though not t <= 0 but rather t = x + iy with y nonzero).

I repeat my earlier question:

What is the volume of the skin, actually? Don't just give an approximation that works [I]as if[/I] it was just a spherical shell, give me the actual 4-D content (=hyper-volume#. Also good would be a description of the actual shape: is it a hypersolid of rotation, an extruded hypersolid, or something else entirely?[/QUOTE]

You needn't repeat, I'll get to it soon enough. But the width of
the skin dimension and the volume of the 3-space and the 4-space
aren't primaries, so this other question takes priority.

The temporal infinite regress is discussed in the monograph. The
argument there goes: substance, space and time #which I give
a working definition of# are all three co-existent and co-necessary
#which I demonstrate#, consequently all three have always been
#i won't reproduce the entire monograph's argument for this#
and always will be. Hence no beginning #or t=0) or end.

And while I admire S.Hawking's originality, he's wrong on time.
Time's history is anything BUT brief.

[QUOTE=davar55;364557]And while I admire S.Hawking's originality, he's wrong on time.[/QUOTE]

Just so we're all clear...

You're claiming that you know better than Steven Hawking?

[QUOTE=davar55;364557]The temporal infinite regress is discussed in the monograph. The
argument there goes: substance, space and time #which I give
a working definition of# are all three co-existent and co-necessary
#which I demonstrate#, consequently all three have always been
#i won't reproduce the entire monograph's argument for this#
and always will be. Hence no beginning #or t=0) or end.[/QUOTE]I do not wish to derail the questions and responses between you and CRGreathouse but do wish to acknowledge your effort to answer my questions.

My thought on what you are saying is: an EM wave can travel forever if uninterrupted, but that does not mean that nothing could have generated it - nor does it mean that the conditions that could generate it must always have existed. To support a strong statement of eternal existence I would like that supposing otherwise introduces a contradiction.

[QUOTE=only_human;364560]I do not wish to derail the questions and responses between you and CRGreathouse but do wish to acknowledge your effort to answer my questions.

My thoughts on what you are saying is: an EM wave can travel forever if uninterrupted, but that does not mean that nothing could have generated it - nor does it mean that the conditions that could generate it must always have existed. To support a strong statement of eternal existence I would like that supposing otherwise introduces a contradiction.[/QUOTE]

The monograph does argue just so. If there had been a creation, a
first moment, a beginning to the Universe, say a big bang to start
things going, it would have been at an instant of time. (The idea
that time is not a necessary real concept is untenable, as explained
in the monograph). Then by cause and effect, something must have
preceeded that, hence there must have been an earlier moment.
And so on, and so on. This implies an infinite regression - for the
Universe as a whole. But not for any particular thing within the
Universe - any thing or particle may have had a finite history.

So positing a start to the whole Universe contradicts the necessity
of time. Always. Everywhere.

[QUOTE=chalsall;364558]Just so we're all clear...

You're claiming that you know better than Steven Hawking?[/QUOTE]

Without impugning a great physicist, I have placed my explanations
for a better cosmological viewpoint in the monograph. I'm not
comparing myself to him, only my differing ideas (on BBT, RedShift,
Black Holes, God, some others).

He's not the only physicist to have (possibly) made errors, I say
possibly because my cosmological theories, which I try to make
"falsifiable" and consistent, haven't yet been checked via new
experimental evidence. But if they are borne out, then yes much
cosmological theory will prove to have been mistaken.

[QUOTE=davar55;364565]I say possibly because my cosmological theories, which I try to make "falsifiable" and consistent, haven't yet been checked via new experimental evidence. But if they are borne out, then yes much cosmological theory will prove to have been mistaken.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, are you familiar with the term "Crash and Burn"?

[QUOTE=chalsall;364571]With all due respect, are you familiar with the term "Crash and Burn"?[/QUOTE]

Certainly. It's what the Universe would already have done
if the BBT were true. Which it clearly ISN'T.

Not by my say so, BTW. That would be an appeal to
an authority, which is what some people do.

Ok, we've all had fun nit-picking over the last year or so. Time to cut to the chase IMO.

If the universe is infinitely old, why is it so far from thermal equilibrium at present?

Here is where I as neither a physicist, Astronomer or even a decent Mathematician .... but with a self declared good imagination gets hung up:

Where did all that stuff come from that went BANG!!!!!!

If you believe in a Supreme Being you might either believe that he created it in the blink of an eye and made it go Bang....or that there was no Bang.

If you do not believe then there had to have been a LONG time before t=0 for the stuff to collect.

Then I might ask how did that stuff come to be that began to collect?