From: jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John F Nielsen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:40:47 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

>[The point I was making is that your question is meaningless.  Since
>the big bang involves the origin of space-time, there is nothing
>before it.  "Before" is a relationship in time, so you can't talk
>about "before" where there's no time.  Now it's possible that there's
>some higher-dimensionality system in which we can see that our
>universe is just part of the picture.  Maybe in such a context, one
>can set up some higher-order equivalent of time, in which it would
>make sense to ask what comes before the origin of time.  But (1) as
>far as I know, there's no generally accepted model of this kind at the
>moment, and (2) even if there were, it seems to me that strictly
>speaking, "before" applies to relationships within our universe,
>because it is a measurement along our timeline.  --clh]

This sounds like a bunch of jargon to me, support your statements.

Also, are you sure you are not confusing something? I've had
physics(including a course in quantum physics) and taken courses
through differential equations(though I've only been experienced with
special relativity).

All this may sound nice. But, to me it simply does not make sense.
Either you have partial knowledge or are not telling the entire story.

Also, are you sure you are taking time zero to be too literal?
Time zero may just be another reference point(we use A.D. for after
zero and B.C. for before zero). Maybe there should be a BG for
before Big Bang.

My problem is this. I do not see how "higher-dimensionality" or
the rest of that jargon clarifies anything. 

You are claiming that we "know" there was nothing before the big bang.
How did one prove this? And, then how did the big bang come about in
the first place, if there was nothing, assuming there was not goldly
intervention.(I really doubt the physicists use GOD in their
equations, so if you contend this is common knowledge, you have
to come up with a non-godly version).

john

-- 
John Nielsen   MAGNUS Consultant            ______   ______   __  __	
jnielsen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu         /\  __ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
                                           \ \ \/\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \
  Back off man, I'm a Scientist!            \ \_____\\/\_____\\ \_____\

[The problem is that we're dealing with a geometry that's not
Euclidean.  If you've seen Q.M. and special relativity, you probably
haven't run into the concepts of curved space-time.  This is typically
done in general relativity and cosmology.  It's sort of mind-boggling.
We're used to thinking of space and time as x, y, z, and t axes that
are at right angles and go to infinity in both directions.  But there
are geometries in which this isn't true, and general relativity is
based on the principle that the real world is of that kind.  A simple
example of a geometry where axes don't go on forever is the 2-D space
formed by the surface of a sphere.  The claim is that in the big bang
model, the geometry is such that time is not infinite in the negative
direction.  It doesn't go back around as in a circle, but it does
something else that also keeps it from being a straight line going
back forever.  Rather than try to go further (which would require me
to try and draw wierd diagrams in ASCII), let me simply refer you to
my source, which is Davies' book "The Mind of God".  (The title is
misleading -- he does not depend upon God for any of this.)

I have to say that I took general relativity 20 years ago, which is
long before this stuff was formulated.  So I'm depending upon
popularized accounts of models of the big bang.

--clh]