Evidence that universe created itself

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is not "observable" has in case of the universe not any chance to have an influence on us

Well...maybe. Probably. Echoes of collisions with other universes, possibly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do I?



Did they?



?



Do I?



¿I do?



Why for heavens sake do you say anything to me? I'm an idiot. You should not waste your time with idiots.

Youre not an idiot. Not having outsmarted lifetime theoretical physicists does not make one an idiot.

 

[zaangalewa]

The presence of energy and matter creates gravity.

Yes and no.

All of your questions are answered here....

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf

Do me the favor to answer "my" questions on your own with "your" answers.

 

[zaangalewa]

Well...maybe. Probably. Echoes of collisions with other universes, possibly.

Which other universes? Wherein has to happen such a collusion? In a nothing? ... And what from such a collusion could reach us far from the observable part of the universe as long as the highest signal speed is the speed of light in a vacuum?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which other universes? Wherein has to happen such a collusion? In a nothing?

No, in a larger space. Maybe a higher dimensional space. This is where the word "universe" gets ambiguous. We have no good reason to think there is nothing outside our universe. It also may not be true that nothing outside our universe can affect any stage of our universe. Basically, we just know squat about it.

What is the geometry of our universe? What is the net energy of our universe (is it zero?)? Does it go on forever, or is it a closed space? Is it truly boundless, as we assume --for expedience -- that it is? Is our universe eternal? Are white holes real? Are there other universes? These are all scientific questions.

 

[ding]

Yes and no.

The presence of energy and matter creates gravity can not be disputed.

Do me the favor to answer "my" questions on your own with "your" answers.

So you don't want to see the scientific paper on the universe being spontaneously created from nothing?

Maybe if you had something that actually backed up whatever silly thing that comes to your mind I could take you more seriously.

 

[zaangalewa]

Youre not an idiot.

Not? That's new to me. Every time I make somethgin wrong I call me an idiot. Should I be more respectful? Whatever. I may life with the idiot, who calls me from time to time an idiot.

Not having outsmarted lifetime theoretical physicists does not make one an idiot.

Makes this sentence any sense?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not? That's new to me. Every time I make somethgin wrong I call me an idiot. Should I be more respectful? Whatever. I may life with the idiot, who calls me from time to time idiot.



Makes this sentence any sense?

To say you you have not outsmarted the experts is not to say you are an idiot.

 

[zaangalewa]

No, in a larger space.

You seem to think nothing and space are the same. I said here something about - I don't likle to repeat it now.

Maybe a higher dimensional space.

I - and as far as I know everyone else - never saw something what was crossing our spacetime from a higher dimension of spacetime.

This is where the word "universe" gets ambiguous.

Get's what? ¿ambigous? ... "Vielschichtig" would be an interesting translation ... "mehrdeutig" not. It is what it is. In the end it is unimportant how we call the mathematical construct "universe" in natural science. Pippi Longstocking found a word which is still not used. This we also could use - if Pippi allows us to do so. Not to do what she likes to do could cause a problem.

We have no good reason to think there is nothing outside our universe.

Yea - but is this nothing a real nothing or are we only able to say nothing about? This is the point. I think there's (where no there is) is a real nothing. And everyone who says "there" is something has to explain wher this there could be and what it is what is there. Until now I share "only" the idea that god transcends the nothing.

It also may not be true that nothing outside our universe can affect any stage of our universe. Basically, we just know squat about it.

But nowhwere is an outside of the universe!

What is the geometry of our universe?

It is flat.

What is the net energy of our universe (is it zero?)?

If trust in this what I read up to now than this seems to be true. The problem: Not to have energy (for interactions) and not to exist is the same. You could stand in a sun but if this sun not interacts with you then nothing happens. This sun is [for you] not existing. So "outside" of the universe (which has no outside) we are not existent, if the universe has no energy.

Does it go on forever, or is it a closed space?

It is flat. So it is not closed. Read what the people said here.

Is it truly boundless, as we assume --for expedience -- that it is? Is our universe eternal? Are white holes real?

White holes are nonsense. Everything what falls into a black hole makes black holes fatter. They lose energy only via Hawking radiation. And looks like the existence of the Hawking radiation is meanwhile proven.

Are there other universes? These are all scientific questions.

The existence of other universes is an unproven - and even an unprovable - idea. We don't know - we never will know. The only bridge to other universes is mathematics. Who thinks this is enough thinks somehow beyond the nothing is information. But what really exists behind a not existing ocean of nothing and a not existing "behind" in this nothing which is nowhere - that's not easily to say.

 

[zaangalewa]

To say you you have not outsmarted the experts is not to say you are an idiot.

But I am. And I am also an asshole. And a bear ... but that's another theme.

 

[Colin norris]

There are theories, such as String Theory. There is a theory that White Holes exist - the opposite of Black Holes, and mathematically possible. Instead of sucking in matter like Black Holes, White Holes shoot out matter. So our particular universe could have simply exploded out of the ass end of one of those.

The brilliant Lawrence Krauss has a new book out on this, "A Universe From Nothing", Amazon product ASIN 1451624468
That's the beauty and fun of science: You always get to be curious, challenge yourself, ask questions, think, experiment, and admit that you don't have all the answers. Awesome!
.

I have never heard a thing about white holes.

Anyone can have any theory they like about it's origin. One thing is certain, It was not created by some hideous ridiculous God. There's was no six days of glorious happenings etc. It's rubbish.

There is little doubt and can be proven the most plausible and possibly the only
Theory is the big bang.

Any evidence science has plus the addition of physics etc points to it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You seem to think nothing and space are the same

You said "nothing". I replied, "No, in a larger space.". So you are either mistaken or lying.

It is flat.

Maybe I was not clear. I was referring to the geometry of our universe, not to the flatness of space contained within. We don't really know if the geometry of our universe is flat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You seem to think nothing and space are the same

You said "nothing". I replied, "No, in a larger space.". So you are either mistaken or lying.

It is flat.

You do not know that. You keep doing that.

I have never heard a thing about white holes

You should look it up. Cool stuff.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

White holes are nonsense. Everything what falls into a black hole makes black holes fatter. They lose energy only via Hawking radiation. And looks like the existence of the Hawking radiation is meanwhile proven.

The scientists who describe the theoretical possibility of white holes actually know all that. Since they, you know, discovered it. So your confident assertion seems theatrical.

 

[sear]

zaangalewa said:
It is flat.

You keep doing that. Please stop pretending you know the answers

Thanks FF. I share your preference for precision.
But this is not the first time I've encountered the "flat" assertion.

Sphere would make more sense to me. But I'm not an astrophysicist. I'll go easy on za for that, as he may merely be sharing a (consensus?) idea from those that are astrophysicists. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[zaangalewa]

You said "nothing". I replied, "No, in a larger space.". So you are either mistaken or lying.

What about to let it be to speak with me any longer? People who have no manners need not to discuss about natural science.

Maybe I was not clear. I was referring to the geometry of our universe, not to the flatness of space contained within.

It is an object with only centers and no outside.

We don't really know if the geometry of our universe is flat.

We know this. It is proven more than one time that a the sum of the angles of a triangle in the size of millions and billions of lightyears has 180°. I will not repeat this any longer. Short: The universe is flat.

 

[zaangalewa]

You said "nothing". I replied, "No, in a larger space.". So you are either mistaken or lying.



You do not know that. You keep doing that.

You should look it up. Cool stuff.

no comment

 

[zaangalewa]

The scientists who describe the theoretical possibility of white holes actually know all that. Since they, you know, discovered it. So your confident assertion seems theatrical.

Asides that never anyone saw a white hole: Where from comes a white hole as long as a black hole is not losing energy (except by Hawking radiation, which has nothing do with white holes)? So it exists for sure not any wormhole which connects black and white holes. And the idea to replace future with past and the direction of time is just simple a film which runs backward. In this case everything flies out of a black whole - but this means nothing. No need to call this "white hole". If you smash a cup on the floor then you never will see in reality how the broken pieces will find together again - independent how often you are able to watch this in a backward playing film.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

People who have no manners need not to discuss about natural science.

You misrepresented me. That was poor manners. I still gave you the courtesy of saying you may be mistaken. You are very sensitive.

 

[LittleNipper]

What a ridiculous, stupid lie. Why oh why did you come to the science section and embarrass yourself like this?

So, you say. You've really revealed why what I said is wrong and unscientific... Actually, I'm being facetious.