How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

You, who are extremely careful about making proclamations of FACT regarding various theories because they are NOT facts, just made a serious error in declaring that 96% of the universe is made up of, which you can't possibly actual know.

Missing: 96 Percent of the Universe | Dark Matter & Dark Energy | The 4% Universe, Richard Panek

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter. Astronomers infer their existence based on their gravitational influence on what little bits of the universe can be seen, but dark matter and energy themselves continue to elude all detection.

"The overwhelming majority of the universe is: who knows?" explains science writer Richard Panek, who spoke about these oddities of our universe on Monday (May 9) at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) here in Manhattan. "It's unknown for now, and possibly forever."

 

[Boss]

The fact that perceived time was different for each individual doesn't change the amount of actual time that has passed.

Time IS perception. There is no such thing as "actual" time, this is what Einstein proved with Theory of Relativity. Time is relative to the observer of it. We can only experience time as "present" or "now" ...there is no way for anyone to experience "past" or "future" time. If you time-traveled to the past or future, you would experience it as "present" and the people around you would also be experiencing it as "present" ...there would be no way to tell that you were experiencing "past" or "future" other than the circumstantial conditions around you. Your perception would still be "present" and their perception would still be "present" ...they would not know they were in your past or future.

In my example, the returning twin is experiencing the same "present" time, but he is in the future by a couple of years, proven by the fact his twin is two years older than he. If the time-traveling twin has kept track of time and his calendar, he will know that he is two years into the future from the date/time on his calendar. His time slowed down, the twin on earth's time stayed the same. They will both have equal perception of "present" time, but one is two years into the future.

One took damage equivalent to 2 years worth of age and perhaps even experienced time at a different rate, but only perceived time is factored in. The actual time that passed is the same.

LOL.. The "actual time" that passed for the twin on earth is the same. The "actual time" for the traveling twin is not the same. Again.... there is no such thing as "actual" time. That is a 500 year old concept of Sir Isaac Newton, which has been disproven by Einstein for nearly 60 years. Time is RELATIVE.... not ACTUAL!

 

[edthecynic]

The fact that perceived time was different for each individual doesn't change the amount of actual time that has passed.

Time IS perception. There is no such thing as "actual" time, this is what Einstein proved with Theory of Relativity. Time is relative to the observer of it. We can only experience time as "present" or "now" ...there is no way for anyone to experience "past" or "future" time. If you time-traveled to the past or future, you would experience it as "present" and the people around you would also be experiencing it as "present" ...there would be no way to tell that you were experiencing "past" or "future" other than the circumstantial conditions around you. Your perception would still be "present" and their perception would still be "present" ...they would not know they were in your past or future.

In my example, the returning twin is experiencing the same "present" time, but he is in the future by a couple of years, proven by the fact his twin is two years older than he. If the time-traveling twin has kept track of time and his calendar, he will know that he is two years into the future from the date/time on his calendar. His time slowed down, the twin on earth's time stayed the same. They will both have equal perception of "present" time, but one is two years into the future.

One took damage equivalent to 2 years worth of age and perhaps even experienced time at a different rate, but only perceived time is factored in. The actual time that passed is the same.

Again he doesn't get it. If the one twin traveled for one year at greater than the speed of light, he would have traveled a greater distance than the other twin over that year, but it still would have taken him a year to travel out and back to his twin. Neither his clock nor his twin's clock would have moved backwards.

 

[Slyhunter]

You, who are extremely careful about making proclamations of FACT regarding various theories because they are NOT facts, just made a serious error in declaring that 96% of the universe is made up of, which you can't possibly actual know.

Missing: 96 Percent of the Universe | Dark Matter & Dark Energy | The 4% Universe, Richard Panek

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

These mysterious substances are called dark energy and dark matter. Astronomers infer their existence based on their gravitational influence on what little bits of the universe can be seen, but dark matter and energy themselves continue to elude all detection.

"The overwhelming majority of the universe is: who knows?" explains science writer Richard Panek, who spoke about these oddities of our universe on Monday (May 9) at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) here in Manhattan. "It's unknown for now, and possibly forever."

Exactly.

NEW YORK — All the stars, planets and galaxies that can be seen today make up just 4 percent of the universe. The other 96 percent is made of stuff astronomers can't see, detect or even comprehend.

 

[Slyhunter]

Time IS perception. There is no such thing as "actual" time, this is what Einstein proved with Theory of Relativity. Time is relative to the observer of it. We can only experience time as "present" or "now" ...there is no way for anyone to experience "past" or "future" time. If you time-traveled to the past or future, you would experience it as "present" and the people around you would also be experiencing it as "present" ...there would be no way to tell that you were experiencing "past" or "future" other than the circumstantial conditions around you. Your perception would still be "present" and their perception would still be "present" ...they would not know they were in your past or future.

In my example, the returning twin is experiencing the same "present" time, but he is in the future by a couple of years, proven by the fact his twin is two years older than he. If the time-traveling twin has kept track of time and his calendar, he will know that he is two years into the future from the date/time on his calendar. His time slowed down, the twin on earth's time stayed the same. They will both have equal perception of "present" time, but one is two years into the future.

One took damage equivalent to 2 years worth of age and perhaps even experienced time at a different rate, but only perceived time is factored in. The actual time that passed is the same.

LOL.. The "actual time" that passed for the twin on earth is the same. The "actual time" for the traveling twin is not the same. Again.... there is no such thing as "actual" time. That is a 500 year old concept of Sir Isaac Newton, which has been disproven by Einstein for nearly 60 years. Time is RELATIVE.... not ACTUAL!

You only think it's not actual.
The universe wouldn't be able to exist if actual time fluctuated for every living being.

 

[Boss]

What he doesn't get is that you can't stand still and make time move backwards. No matter how fast you go, even 10 times the speed of light, you still traveled a distance over a period of time. Your body functions may have slowed down and your body may not age as fast relative to another observer, but by any and all observers, including yourself, you have moved forward in time.

Huh? When in the hell did I say you could stand still and make time move backwards?

Presently, it is not possible for us to travel faster than the speed of light. If we could travel the speed of light, we could essentially make time stop. Your body functions wouldn't slow down and you would age the exact same way, but time would not pass.

 

[Pennywise]

The concept of infinity is equally as unsettling as the concept of a finite space, for the void beyond is in itself, something. The desire to know is natural, of course, while the claiming of knowing, is arrogant and childish.

Atheism is absolute arrogance. Faith can be arrogant (because one claims to "know") but at least there is an historical record (of sorts) for the possibility that God is a real sentient creator. What we do know, is that our little concerns here at this moment mean nothing and everything at the same time. We are insignificant and the pinnacle of importance. Our thoughts are meaningless and the height of critical introspection.

It all means everything and nothing.

 

[Boss]

You only think it's not actual.
The universe wouldn't be able to exist if actual time fluctuated for every living being.

It doesn't fluctuate for every living being, at least not a perceptible amount.

Again, there is no such thing as "actual" time. Time is relative to the observer.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity: A Simplified Explanation

Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were interwoven into a single continuum known as space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another.

 

[Slyhunter]

What he doesn't get is that you can't stand still and make time move backwards. No matter how fast you go, even 10 times the speed of light, you still traveled a distance over a period of time. Your body functions may have slowed down and your body may not age as fast relative to another observer, but by any and all observers, including yourself, you have moved forward in time.

Huh? When in the hell did I say you could stand still and make time move backwards?

Presently, it is not possible for us to travel faster than the speed of light. If we could travel the speed of light, we could essentially make time stop. Your body functions wouldn't slow down and you would age the exact same way, but time would not pass.

Bullshit.

 

[Boss]

Bullshit.

Tell Einstein, Hawking and Kaku... I'm just the messenger!

 

[edthecynic]

Bullshit.

Tell Einstein, Hawking and Kaku... I'm just the messenger!

Einstein just turned over in his grave!!!

 

[Boss]

Bullshit.

Tell Einstein, Hawking and Kaku... I'm just the messenger!

Einstein just turned over in his grave!!!

Uhm.. Einstein is who discovered time is relative. If he turned over it's because some idiot called 'bullshit' on that 109 years later.

 

[edthecynic]

Tell Einstein, Hawking and Kaku... I'm just the messenger!

Einstein just turned over in his grave!!!

Uhm.. Einstein is who discovered time is relative. If he turned over it's because some idiot called 'bullshit' on that 109 years later.

The bullshit is traveling faster than the speed of light will take you back in time.
Do try to keep up.

 

[Boss]

Einstein just turned over in his grave!!!

Uhm.. Einstein is who discovered time is relative. If he turned over it's because some idiot called 'bullshit' on that 109 years later.

The bullshit is traveling faster than the speed of light will take you back in time.
Do try to keep up.

I didn't say it "will" ...I said it's theoretically possible. However, it's not traveling the speed of light that would take you back in time.

Wormhole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A wormhole, also known as an Einstein–Rosen bridge, is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that would fundamentally be a "shortcut" through spacetime. A wormhole is much like a tunnel with two ends each in separate points in spacetime.

The Casimir effect shows that quantum field theory allows the energy density in certain regions of space to be negative relative to the ordinary vacuum energy, and it has been shown theoretically that quantum field theory allows states where the energy can be arbitrarily negative at a given point.[1] Many physicists such as Stephen Hawking,[2] Kip Thorne,[3] and others[4][5][6] therefore argue that such effects might make it possible to stabilize a traversable wormhole.

 

[edthecynic]

Uhm.. Einstein is who discovered time is relative. If he turned over it's because some idiot called 'bullshit' on that 109 years later.

The bullshit is traveling faster than the speed of light will take you back in time.
Do try to keep up.

I didn't say it "will" ...I said it's theoretically possible. However, it's not traveling the speed of light that would take you back in time.

That's not what you said earlier!

But I'm glad you finally came around to my side on that.
Thank You!

 

[sealybobo]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

We don't know. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

 

[Boss]

The bullshit is traveling faster than the speed of light will take you back in time.
Do try to keep up.

I didn't say it "will" ...I said it's theoretically possible. However, it's not traveling the speed of light that would take you back in time.

That's not what you said earlier!

But I'm glad you finally came around to my side on that.
Thank You!

Why didn't you quote what I said earlier?

I didn't "finally come around" to your side. I stated correctly, if you could travel the speed of light, you could stop time. I gave a hypothetical about twins, one on earth and one traveling near the speed of light. This is a popular hypothetical taught in most quantum physics classes. It demonstrates how we DO "travel in time" because time is relative. I never said a damn thing about traveling BACK in time. In my hypothetical, the twin travels into the future, not the past.

What you are doing is what most of the morons at this site do, you are morphing things I say into some absurd and ridiculous thing that I never said, then trying to strong arm your fucking way to an argumentative win. It's sad and pathetic. Go fuck yourself!

 

[Boss]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

We don't know. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Can I ask you something? The hack pseudo-science website you are copying and pasting this incoherent babble from... are they paying you? Because all you seem to be doing is free advertising for them. I seriously doubt you have the intellectual competence to even understand half the shit you post about. I've seen these same paragraphs posted by you numerous times in numerous threads. You're simply flooding the board with this stuff like some kind of fucking autobot. I really do hope you are smart enough to have worked out a payment arrangement for your work. I would hate to think you're doing this for free.

 

[edthecynic]

I didn't say it "will" ...I said it's theoretically possible. However, it's not traveling the speed of light that would take you back in time.

That's not what you said earlier!

But I'm glad you finally came around to my side on that.
Thank You!

Why didn't you quote what I said earlier?

I didn't "finally come around" to your side. I stated correctly, if you could travel the speed of light, you could stop time. I gave a hypothetical about twins, one on earth and one traveling near the speed of light. This is a popular hypothetical taught in most quantum physics classes. It demonstrates how we DO "travel in time" because time is relative. I never said a damn thing about traveling BACK in time. In my hypothetical, the twin travels into the future, not the past.

What you are doing is what most of the morons at this site do, you are morphing things I say into some absurd and ridiculous thing that I never said, then trying to strong arm your fucking way to an argumentative win. It's sad and pathetic. Go fuck yourself!

Because I knew you would deny saying it if I didn't quote you, I know pompous know-it-alls like you like the back of my hand. That's why I'm glad we are on a messageboard rather than arguing in person where you can simply deny what you said and get away with it. Of course you will deny what you said even after I post it and play word games that you didn't mean what you said, but at least it will be there for everyone to see.

Now we can't presently time travel because we can't go faster than the speed of light. In fact, up until recently, it was thought that nothing could go faster than the speed of light. It contradicts classical physics or Newtonian physics. It even challenges Einsteinian physics. But theoretical physicists who are pioneering quantum physics say that it IS a possibility.

 

[Boss]

since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in.

Where is the evidence that "cause" requires time to exist in?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations.

Not true. We've NEVER observed something coming from nothing.

Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?”

Nonsense. The North Pole is a geographic location, there is nothing north of it. Time is not a concept. It is a dimension in space-time continuum, one of four dimensions that comprise reality. In theory, time and space does not exist until the Singularity which is the beginning of the Big Bang... but this is a THEORY!

Causation is logic, and while there is no requirement for logic to apply when dealing with origin of the universe, it certainly applies to Newton's Laws of Motion. If the universe is in motion, something set it into motion. Now you are saying we don't need to explain this, but in order to explain it, we logically DO need to explain it. We can't claim it is unexplained yet explained... that defies logic.