RM> KK> Relativity showed that space and time are not absolutes existing
RM> KK> independently of matter; rather, space and time are properties of
RM> KK> matter.
RM>Is relativity (mathematics) all that there is for support in this?
If you know more than I do about supermassive binaries, then you
can probably answer this better than I can.  Most of the implications
of relativity have been carefully tested and so far confirmed.  So it
isn't just mathematics.  If you need details, you'll have to ask
someone like the moderator of Astronomy.  But just as Newtonian
mechanics only work within a limited range, so it may likely be with
relativity.
RM> KK> If we apply this to the BB model, then the BB did not expand into
RM> KK> a pre-existing space and time; rather, space and time appeared
RM> KK> along with matter as we know it.  That's a truly weird concept to
RM> KK> try and wrap your mind around, but relativity has been right about
RM> KK> so many other things that it's very likely right about that too.
RM>Do not forget the failing of relativity in predicting the orbits of
RM>super-massive binary stars (eg. Di-Herculis).  I forget the astronomer's
RM>name, but this guy spent nearly his entire career trying to solve the
RM>problem and save relativity at such massive scales.  Now, if relativity
RM>fails with Di-Herculis which is very much less massive then a Big Bang
RM>singularity, relativity is quite unreliable at the BB singularity.
It's important to recall that relativity is an amazingly reliable
description of ordinary matter outside the realm of singularities.
RM>Remember that any BB cosmology totally fails to make ANY sense at the
RM>singularity, because all laws of physics do not apply.
But you can work your way backward until ordinary matter is no
longer there.
Allow me to toss in a comment by James Harrison from the Science echo
about general realtivity (GR):
--------
Date: 02-16-98 (22:41)             Number: 2128
From: JAMES HARRISON               Refer#: NONE
  To: DAVE HAZELMAN                 Recvd: NO
Subj: white holes                    Conf: (640) ūSCIENCE
[...]
 DH> Black holes might be nature's ultimate recycling center.
Possible.  One of the strengths of GR is that it predicts that it will
fail sufficiently close to a singularity.
---------
It is easy to create doubt about relativity by pointing out that
it fails around singularities, but this leaves out the apparent fact
that relativity itself _predicts_ that it will fail around singularities.
If those predictions are borne out, they actually support relativity
rather than bringing doubt upon it.
In that sense, your argument against relativity strongly resembles
certain creationist arguments in that it presents a verifiable fact
that is only half the story.
RM>                                                     As I mentioned
RM>to others here before, they are working from an unproven assumption that
RM>there was a BB singularity.
And at the moment that assumption has more empirical support than
any of the other assumptions, such as divine creation.
RM>                      There is no way to PROVE that there ever was
RM>such a singularity.
Science leaves 'proof' to whiskey and mathematics.  The reason scientific
theories are never said to be 'proven' is that the dataset is never
complete.  In science you cannot say "All crows are black," because
somewhere there might be white crows you don't know about.  But you
can say, "All crows known to me at this time are black."  And if
someone discovers white crows in the wilds of eastern India, notice
how this demolishes the first assertion, but not the second.
The second assertion still describes the vast majority of the dataset.
So although you can't 'prove' the existence of the original singularity,
if observations keep supporting its existence, then you can eventually
build a very strong case for it.  For example, a BB model predicted
the existence of the microwave background radiation before it was
observed -- a crucial test of any scientific theory.  But some early
BB model also presdicted that the large-scale structure of the
universe would be smooth and even, and in fact that large-scale
structure is foamy and stringy.  In science you don't start with
Revealed Truth that must be true no matter what the facts.  Rather,
there is an interplay between explanation and observation.
RM>Besides, you did not answer the question, "What was the cosmic singularity
RM>inside of?".  ;)
If space and time are properties of matter as we know it, then
when matter as we know it didn't yet exist, there was no 'inside of.'
 * SLMR 2.1a *  HAL 9000: Dave, put those Win95 disks down .... Dave....
(1:301/45)
---------------