Quantum entanglement is a little difficult (← gross understatement) to explain in terms of cause and effect. We understand the what but not the how.
You still haven’t supplied evidence for that claim.
(Just a short hike to the road to get the mail and take a few photos. 
)
@mitchellmckain has actually already addressed this above, about absolute time, and I’m sure he has a better mathematical physics background than I, and may know the relevant equation off the top of his head. @Klax and @glipsnort, @Chris_Falter, @pevaquark and others?
Meanwhile, I’ll look for it. It’s pretty straightforward.
Well, I found this before I found the equation I have in mind:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/hawking-time.html
This is the same thing, at first glance, anyway, but maybe harder to read unless you use the “reader mode” of your browser:
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time
Also this:
And this:
Say what??! Mitch is on record as a nonbeliever where absolute time and absolute space are concerned: On the intersection of an Infinite and Eternal God and Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity:
- “Absolute space and absolute time simply have no validity in either science or theology. In science the notion that space or time are absolute are shown to be incorrect in so far as we can measure them – they are just ways in which the events of the physical universe are ordered (and because of the Minkowsky structure this ordering is not as you might expect). In theology, space and time are things created by God so there is nothing absolute about them there either.”
- Really brilliant reasoning there!
- I defined Absolute Space and Absolute Time as sets. The elements of Space are dimensionless points and the elements of Time are dimensionless instants. Both Absolute Space and Absolute Time are abstract nouns, not concrete nouns. So Mr. Scientist says Absolute Space and Absolute Time have no validity in science or theology because they can’t be measured. LOL! Hello? Somebody doesn’t seem to know what an abstract noun is.
- Really brilliant reasoning there!
Sorry, what is the issue here? Nothing about the beginning of the universe itself is pretty straightforward.
The Friedmann equation is… interesting and important. I have a few classes where we go through the equation and some of its implications, but what does it have to do with the beginning of the universe exactly?
I was looking for the relativistic equation that demonstrates that time had a beginning.
That was my point, about absolute time: it does not exist.
Personally, I agree with you (and I consider myself to be a Christian.) I recognize the appeal of William Lane Craig’s Kalaam Cosmological Argument; however, I don’t subscribe to the opinion that a Transcendantal Argument is the Be-all and End-all argument for a transcendant prime mover.
That said, I’m surprised that you, of all people, believe in Absolute Space and Absolute Time. I seem to remember that you’re a fairly staunch subscriber to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, no?
2 Likes
I like to include the objective evidence. 
One of the problems with General Relativity and QFT is that they are more of a theoretical framework than a theory. This means they can describe many things which may not be real. So they do not of themselves constitute evidence. To get an actual theory like the Big Bang or the Standard model you make lot of assumption in addition to matching a number of measurement.
And then often scientist need to make adjustments and alteration to the theory to match more measurements and observations. Some conclusions get pretty solid as more evidence simply give you a more and more precise calculation of that result. The age of the universe is an example of this. But many more questions remain unresolved.
While it certainly is the implication of the Big Bang theory that time as we measure it began 13.8 billion ya with everything else. It is an overstatement to say this is a proven fact. All our equations of physics pretty much unravel at the very beginning of the universe. We can get close… down to rather small fractions of a second, but before that is just a big question mark. All we have are guesses and speculations with no real evidence to decide between them. Some like the idea of a creator and other don’t like this idea. Those that don’t like the idea of a creator like to put it all down to natural law and thus like to imagine the universe coming from some event in a higher dimensional structure. And while it is unlikely (nearly to the point of incoherence) to be a continuity with time as we measure it. This would still be something that went before in a causal sense. In a way, it seems funny to me how all of that sound so similar to a lot of theological ideas.
1 Like
What science does as a part of it’s routine are new discoveries.
Something that is thought as supernatural may exist beyond our observance or very rare occurrences.
I like the example of upper-atmospheric lightning (Upper-atmospheric lightning - Wikipedia). It was unknown until caught from space.
Another example of mysticality is a dark figure in a hood that was seen in New England from airplanes (note: when airplane flights became common). It was mystery until explained with a light-mist effect during dawns in certain atmospheric conditions.
I am amazed by thinking of it from the opposite point of view: not chasing myths and beliefs, but going for new discoveries.
There is a lot more to know on the Earth and in the universe.
There is an evolution of theories and their validation, which is possible with the observations.
Science is experimental proof + ideas on paper + technological development which goes beyond our knowledge.
This is a steady process of trials, information gathering, confirmations, refining of the data and enlarging, coordinating knowledge.
Einstein’s conventions were made 100 years ago and still they work and get new proofs with technological leaps.
After years we will be able to observe something that is a theory right now (like multiverse) or an unacknowledged hypothesis with new tools.
Flight into space and seabed exploration carry cutting-edge aims and results for science and the Earth and universe understanding.
Let us be clear. Science is based on the physical, that is, on matter, energy, space, and time. The Big Bang Theory based on established science says that none of these existed before the Big Bang singularity. If this is true, and there is nothing to refute it, the Big Bang is a dead end beyond which science cannot venture.
Deleted by author
1 Like
There are others who have universes being produced from other spacetimes.
https://www.discovery.com/science/Universe-Inside-Every-Black-Hole
I didn’t know that I believed those things. In fact, I’m pretty sure I don’t.
I support them as far as they describe reality. If my understanding is correct, Einstein’s equations break down at some point, such as in the singularities of black holes.
1 Like
There Might Be a Universe Inside Every Black Hole
There might not be, too. We have objective evidence of a creative God.
Actually, … II didn’t really think so; but I can’t make sense of something someone said and thought I might have misunderstood what it is that you believe too.
BTW, didja see my latest thread?
