Jono wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Jono wrote:
Fnord wrote:
What did you expect: Science or Speculation? This is the "Computers, Math, Science, and Technology" forum, after all.
All science starts with a hypothesis.
No, all science starts with a question. Many of the greatest scientific achievements were conceived with the words "Why did that happen?" or "What happens when I do this?" or even "What the *&^%$ is going on here?"
Yes, but in order to answer that question, you still need a hypothesis to make predictions that you can test. That involves speculation. And in any case, how is asking that question any different from asking the sort of question in this thread?
The OP's original question was speculative, in that it regarded conditions before the universe was formed. There is no evidence to prove that there even
were any conditions before the Big Bang (making the phrase "before the Big Bang" meaningless). Without evidence, there can be only speculation, which is the province of philosophers and fantasy writers.
First the question ... no, wait ... first, there has to be something to question. This requires observation.
Then come the questions, then the testable hypotheses, then the tests, then the theories, then the confirmations, then the principles, and then the applications.
There was no observation of conditions before the Big Bang, and even the Big Bang itself is largely speculative, even though high-level maths and high-energy experiments have borne out current theories regarding the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang.
Show me the maths that define God, or an experiment that measures an angel, and
then we can talk about how Science applies to immaterial concepts.