How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

Yea, I'm a totally normal guy in person but here I get to come blurt out all the things I'm thinking or want to say. It is therapy for me. Sometimes I have a bug up my ass about politics and lately it's been all religion. You know, the two things you should never discuss? Well thank god (there I go again acknowledging him) for USMB.

Did you see the post I wrote admitting you are correct I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to space/time e=mc2 or science. I just know what I hear or read. I listen to both sides and then I decide who I believe. But you could totally be right. But then that would mean all these brilliant atheists I watch on the web schooling religious bible thumpers are not as smart as some guy who spends all day on USMB trying to convince people god exists because our ape ancestors made it up. That's it. That's all he has.

I'm assuming like right wingers have a right wing wikipedia site you guys probably have a right wing science site too? Or are those all within the right wing wiki?

Imagine the dolts that go here instead of the regular wikipedia Main Page - Conservapedia

Well, I have never been the type of person to just accept what I've read somewhere. Especially since the Internet came along. You see, I know how to write HTML and create domains. I could very easily create a website and say anything I wanted to say, make it look totally professional and legitimate, and I imagine there would be people who believed whatever I wrote. So I don't put much stock in websites or what they have to say about things.

I have a degree in psychology, which... contrary to what some "scientists" say, is indeed a science. Now it's not astrophysics or cosmology, but it's not cosmetology either. It does require some understanding of basic science. Along with this, I am also a Spiritualist. I connect daily with Spiritual Nature and realize a profoundness to this connection. I can't ignore what I know about science or what I know about spiritual connection. I never have had a problem resolving the two with each other.

For instance, there is no science to support your claim that "our ape ancestors made it up." This is often repeated by Atheists, but in Science, there is just no evidence to support the claim. In fact, the scientific evidence shows that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That's what makes us so different. It's what has enabled our species to advance so far in so many ways over other species, in spite of the fact we got a very late start in the "evolution" process. It is through our spiritual connection we gain the inspiration to aspire and achieve, to push ourselves beyond our abilities.

 

[edthecynic]

All you have done is pontificate and then through out stupid stuff you made up like Einstein coined spacetime

You're right, Minkowski coined it, Einstein proved it. My bad!

and c2 = 0. c2 never = 0, c is a constant.

In a physical universe that exists, this is true.



I'm not stomping my feet, but speed is a measurement which uses time. You cannot have speed until you have time, and space for that matter. It's like claiming the speed of a race car is 200 mph... whether it is on a track or encased in concrete. Sorry if the pontification is over your small-minded head.

In the equation for time t = d / r, c2 is r not t. if t=0 c2 still = c2 not 0.

And none of it matters until you have a physical universe which exists with space and time.

There is no pontification in physics and you can't add a factor like t to the equation e=mc2 by pontification, there is no t=0 in e=mc2. PERIOD.

Well, I am sorry but that is exactly what you have in physics, constant pontification. I didn't add a factor. We are discussing the absense of time and space. In that condition, there is no physics formula that doesn't equate to zero. Physical reality does not exist. All physics is meaningless until there is space and time. I've patiently tried to explain this to you several times, and you keep rejecting it. Try to get it through that thick head... Physics is dead in the water until a physical universe exists for it to function in.

Now you are pontificating pontification in science.

And only YOU are discussing an absence of time AND space, your Straw Man. I am only discussing t = 0, you are too ignorant to know the difference.

 

[edthecynic]

The universe has always been here.

Well, this is a possibility. However, according to Newton's Laws of Motion, some force set the universe in motion at some point. We know for a fact, it is indisputable, the universe is in motion. So you need to resolve what was the cause of this motion the universe has.

If you can't come up with anything, don't worry, it's a real tough problem...

Answered long ago in this thread!

Gravity.

 

[Boss]

Well, this is a possibility. However, according to Newton's Laws of Motion, some force set the universe in motion at some point. We know for a fact, it is indisputable, the universe is in motion. So you need to resolve what was the cause of this motion the universe has.

Gravity.

Part of the quest for an answer mush be formulating the correct question.

If you can't come up with anything, don't worry, it's a real tough problem. Especially when you believe the universe is eternal and has no beginning. Back in the days of Aristotle, many people believed this because the stars never seemed to move. When phenomenon like comets happened, they believed these were omens from the Gods. Then Isaac Newton said, wait.. some things are moving in the universe and we can calculate their movement. Then Einstein came along with Hubble and others and showed the universe is all moving, we just don't notice it because we are moving too. Then, many scientists believed the universe was moving because of a Big Bang that started it, and eventually the velocity would decline and the universe would contract due to gravity. In the past 30 years, we've discovered the velocity is not decreasing but increasing. So "cosmic inflation" has been a bugaboo for a long long time.

Of course, your statement is along the lines of the saying "no matter where you go, there you are!" Certainly, the universe has "always been here" as long as the universe has "been here." There has never been a "time" when the universe wasn't "here." ...This gets really DEEP!

The issue is that no one really knows, or can know the origins of the universe. I stated earlier that branes solve the problem of the weak attractive force of gravity. But IF this is 100% correct, we will never know, because it is simply not possible to detect or experience higher dimensions, particularly if they are contained in branes. Further, the concept of micro-dimensions is prevalent in theoretical cosmology, meaning that stacked dimensions are a possibility, accounting for the erratic behavior of the charmed and strange quarks. So, if our universe is the result of interaction with another dimensional brane, we will never know it, we can only postulate based on the physical effects that these branes exert.

Asking about origins is pointless, we have no way of ever knowing. Evidence suggests that our universe is cyclical, expanding, contracting, exploding, rinse and repeat. I'm not going to rehash what Ed has already covered, but what he presents IS valid.

Gravity cannot be the cause of the motion if it's the result as well. What is gravity without a universe to interact with? Also, there is no gravity in the vacuum of space, but there is expansion.

Now, I do like the theory of Brane Worlds, I think this is a valid concept relating to quantum mechanics, and presents very viable possibilities. And you are correct, we may never know the answers or understand/comprehend them. But then.... What IS God? Isn't this a concept of some higher dimension we can't comprehend in our physical existence?

As for the "expanding, contracting, exploding, rinse and repeat" concept, I do not believe that. In order for this theory to be valid, we would need to realize a universe slowing in motion. For many years, that was the prevailing thought. We've discovered this is not what is happening with the universe, it is accelerating instead of slowing. In addition, the idea of Singularity fails the test of physics because all atoms require space to function as atoms. They cannot exist without space for the nucleus and electrons to operate and function. The idea that all the mass of the universe is compressed into a single ball of energy is baseless because this would still require a massive amount of space, which doesn't exist without space. It's a conundrum that can't be rationalized with physics. Then there is the Uncertainty Principle.

This has led physicists the likes of Stephen Hawking to question whether we ever had a Big Bang or Singularity to begin with. Open String Field Theory suggests our universe may have come to exist when we fused or separated from another universe. The M-verse Theory is interesting, and not out of line with the Brane World idea. However, when we start talking multiple universes, we are also talking about multiple sets of "physics" relating to those universes, and we cannot predict what parameters apply to those. Again, the concept of Spiritual Nature comes into play and becomes a viable consideration. Could be there is very much something to this intrinsic and natural human awareness of something greater than self.... Things that make you go Hmmm?

 

[sealybobo]

Yea, I'm a totally normal guy in person but here I get to come blurt out all the things I'm thinking or want to say. It is therapy for me. Sometimes I have a bug up my ass about politics and lately it's been all religion. You know, the two things you should never discuss? Well thank god (there I go again acknowledging him) for USMB.

Did you see the post I wrote admitting you are correct I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to space/time e=mc2 or science. I just know what I hear or read. I listen to both sides and then I decide who I believe. But you could totally be right. But then that would mean all these brilliant atheists I watch on the web schooling religious bible thumpers are not as smart as some guy who spends all day on USMB trying to convince people god exists because our ape ancestors made it up. That's it. That's all he has.

I'm assuming like right wingers have a right wing wikipedia site you guys probably have a right wing science site too? Or are those all within the right wing wiki?

Imagine the dolts that go here instead of the regular wikipedia Main Page - Conservapedia

Well, I have never been the type of person to just accept what I've read somewhere. Especially since the Internet came along. You see, I know how to write HTML and create domains. I could very easily create a website and say anything I wanted to say, make it look totally professional and legitimate, and I imagine there would be people who believed whatever I wrote. So I don't put much stock in websites or what they have to say about things.

I have a degree in psychology, which... contrary to what some "scientists" say, is indeed a science. Now it's not astrophysics or cosmology, but it's not cosmetology either. It does require some understanding of basic science. Along with this, I am also a Spiritualist. I connect daily with Spiritual Nature and realize a profoundness to this connection. I can't ignore what I know about science or what I know about spiritual connection. I never have had a problem resolving the two with each other.

For instance, there is no science to support your claim that "our ape ancestors made it up." This is often repeated by Atheists, but in Science, there is just no evidence to support the claim. In fact, the scientific evidence shows that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That's what makes us so different. It's what has enabled our species to advance so far in so many ways over other species, in spite of the fact we got a very late start in the "evolution" process. It is through our spiritual connection we gain the inspiration to aspire and achieve, to push ourselves beyond our abilities.

Correction to what you wrote. You seem to write half truths and then slip in your beliefs at the end of ever half truth. You started out correct but then should have wrote that you believe you connect daily with Spiritual Nature and believe in a profoundness to this connection. I can't ignore what I believe about science or what I believe about spiritual connection. In my limited brain I have never have had a problem resolving the two with each other. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR QUOTE. STOP SLIPPING IN BULLSHIT BEHIND EVERY FACT.

3 choices. 1. Science assumes our ape ancestors just made it up where 2. religious people claim god talked to people back then and 3. guys like you don't believe religion but still insist with even less proof that you still believe. I think science is the most probable scenerio out of the three.

And then you go and say this and most of it isn't even true: "scientific evidence shows that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That's what makes us so different. It's what has enabled our species to advance so far in so many ways over other species, in spite of the fact we got a very late start in the "evolution" process. It is through our spiritual connection we gain the inspiration to aspire and achieve, to push ourselves beyond our abilities."

Yes science shows we've been spiritual for 200,000 years but then you go and interject opinion when you say "that's what makes us so different" or when you assume that is what enabled our species to advance so far. Your theory is very weak Boss.

Here is your theory. You say that as soon as we took that leap forward as far as intelligence and were smart enough to have wild imaginations and the ability to imagine up gods that this must mean god exists. So one day or one year we woke up and we were smart enough to come up with fairy tales. At the same time we were also smart enough to come up with weapons and fire and building brick shelters. This is what enabled our primitive species to advance because we were very weak compared to the bears and tigers. But that intelligence coming up with religion proves nothing and it has only a small part to do with us advancing.

But you are correct. Being religion/spiritual did help pass on your genes.

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

Science half agrees with everything you said. The other half is nonsensical wishful thinking. Can you show me one other person on the web that agrees with you? That because we always have believed that is proof??? I'd like to see it. Otherwise you're just one guy with yet another half baked reason of why you believe.

Hey, you should start a church. Got any followers? I didn't think so.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, this is a possibility. However, according to Newton's Laws of Motion, some force set the universe in motion at some point. We know for a fact, it is indisputable, the universe is in motion. So you need to resolve what was the cause of this motion the universe has.

Gravity.

Part of the quest for an answer mush be formulating the correct question.

If you can't come up with anything, don't worry, it's a real tough problem. Especially when you believe the universe is eternal and has no beginning. Back in the days of Aristotle, many people believed this because the stars never seemed to move. When phenomenon like comets happened, they believed these were omens from the Gods. Then Isaac Newton said, wait.. some things are moving in the universe and we can calculate their movement. Then Einstein came along with Hubble and others and showed the universe is all moving, we just don't notice it because we are moving too. Then, many scientists believed the universe was moving because of a Big Bang that started it, and eventually the velocity would decline and the universe would contract due to gravity. In the past 30 years, we've discovered the velocity is not decreasing but increasing. So "cosmic inflation" has been a bugaboo for a long long time.

Of course, your statement is along the lines of the saying "no matter where you go, there you are!" Certainly, the universe has "always been here" as long as the universe has "been here." There has never been a "time" when the universe wasn't "here." ...This gets really DEEP!

The issue is that no one really knows, or can know the origins of the universe. I stated earlier that branes solve the problem of the weak attractive force of gravity. But IF this is 100% correct, we will never know, because it is simply not possible to detect or experience higher dimensions, particularly if they are contained in branes. Further, the concept of micro-dimensions is prevalent in theoretical cosmology, meaning that stacked dimensions are a possibility, accounting for the erratic behavior of the charmed and strange quarks. So, if our universe is the result of interaction with another dimensional brane, we will never know it, we can only postulate based on the physical effects that these branes exert.

Asking about origins is pointless, we have no way of ever knowing. Evidence suggests that our universe is cyclical, expanding, contracting, exploding, rinse and repeat. I'm not going to rehash what Ed has already covered, but what he presents IS valid.

Gravity cannot be the cause of the motion if it's the result as well. What is gravity without a universe to interact with? Also, there is no gravity in the vacuum of space, but there is expansion.

Now, I do like the theory of Brane Worlds, I think this is a valid concept relating to quantum mechanics, and presents very viable possibilities. And you are correct, we may never know the answers or understand/comprehend them. But then.... What IS God? Isn't this a concept of some higher dimension we can't comprehend in our physical existence?

As for the "expanding, contracting, exploding, rinse and repeat" concept, I do not believe that. In order for this theory to be valid, we would need to realize a universe slowing in motion. For many years, that was the prevailing thought. We've discovered this is not what is happening with the universe, it is accelerating instead of slowing. In addition, the idea of Singularity fails the test of physics because all atoms require space to function as atoms. They cannot exist without space for the nucleus and electrons to operate and function. The idea that all the mass of the universe is compressed into a single ball of energy is baseless because this would still require a massive amount of space, which doesn't exist without space. It's a conundrum that can't be rationalized with physics. Then there is the Uncertainty Principle.

This has led physicists the likes of Stephen Hawking to question whether we ever had a Big Bang or Singularity to begin with. Open String Field Theory suggests our universe may have come to exist when we fused or separated from another universe. The M-verse Theory is interesting, and not out of line with the Brane World idea. However, when we start talking multiple universes, we are also talking about multiple sets of "physics" relating to those universes, and we cannot predict what parameters apply to those. Again, the concept of Spiritual Nature comes into play and becomes a viable consideration. Could be there is very much something to this intrinsic and natural human awareness of something greater than self.... Things that make you go Hmmm?

There you go again, pontificating your misrepresentation of the Big Crunch cycle so you have a Straw Man to attack. As you have been told repeatedly, the Big Crunch in no way excludes an accelerating universe at the extremes, you are just plain lying. As I told you the acceleration is theorized to be the gravitational pull of the super massive universal black hole. As I pointed out it is the dark energy that does the acceleration and scientists are starting to call dark energy "dark gravity" because it seems to be more like a gravitational force than anything else. Since no one knows what exactly dark energy is it is highly likely as more is learned that it will turn out to be gravity related over anything else.
Do try to keep up.

 

[Boss]

Now you are pontificating pontification in science.

And only YOU are discussing an absence of time AND space, your Straw Man. I am only discussing t = 0, you are too ignorant to know the difference.

I'm just stating the truth. Science has always been a matter of pontification. Aristotle pontificated thing, Newton rejected those pontifications and made his own, Einstein rejected those and made some more... on and on. That's really all Science is, one pontification after another. As we learn new stuff, we modify the prevailing pontifications. Except, SOME of us are stubborn and want to cling to the old pontifications because we're scared of discovery and knowledge. Some people don't like new concepts coming along and changing what we knew.

There is no straw man. I am discussing the conditions before the universe existed. You are trying to discuss pre-existence using the parameters present in existence. You are trying to argue T=0 after T>0. I am arguing T=Nil. Before the universe existed, time did not exist. Space did not exist. Therefore, physics and physical reality did not exist. You are trying to claim that it did and the principles of something that didn't yet exist, apply to it.

 

[edthecynic]

Now you are pontificating pontification in science.

And only YOU are discussing an absence of time AND space, your Straw Man. I am only discussing t = 0, you are too ignorant to know the difference.

I'm just stating the truth. Science has always been a matter of pontification. Aristotle pontificated thing, Newton rejected those pontifications and made his own, Einstein rejected those and made some more... on and on. That's really all Science is, one pontification after another. As we learn new stuff, we modify the prevailing pontifications. Except, SOME of us are stubborn and want to cling to the old pontifications because we're scared of discovery and knowledge. Some people don't like new concepts coming along and changing what we knew.

There is no straw man. I am discussing the conditions before the universe existed. You are trying to discuss pre-existence using the parameters present in existence. You are trying to argue T=0 after T>0. I am arguing T=Nil. Before the universe existed, time did not exist. Space did not exist. Therefore, physics and physical reality did not exist. You are trying to claim that it did and the principles of something that didn't yet exist, apply to it.

BULLSHIT!

There are no conditions when the universe of energy did not exist. There was a singularity when for a moment there was no motion and for that moment, t = 0, time did not exist, but for that moment all the energy in the universe existed compressed into one small space.

 

[Boss]

3 choices. 1. Science assumes our ape ancestors just made it up where 2. religious people claim god talked to people back then and 3. guys like you don't believe religion but still insist with even less proof that you still believe. I think science is the most probable scenerio out of the three.

Well the thing is, Science does not assume. Science explores possibility and predicts probability only. It never assumes or concludes. In the case of humans and spirituality, the only science we can go by is archaeological science, which reveals that humans have always had intrinsic spirituality. There is absolutely no scientific evidence we made it up. Now... YOU can assume this. YOU can conclude this. But SCIENCE doesn't.

And then you go and say this and most of it isn't even true: "scientific evidence shows that humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That's what makes us so different. It's what has enabled our species to advance so far in so many ways over other species, in spite of the fact we got a very late start in the "evolution" process. It is through our spiritual connection we gain the inspiration to aspire and achieve, to push ourselves beyond our abilities."

Yes science shows we've been spiritual for 200,000 years but then you go and interject opinion when you say "that's what makes us so different" or when you assume that is what enabled our species to advance so far. Your theory is very weak Boss.

Nothing I said is untrue. From the oldest human remains we've ever discovered, humans were spiritually connecting to something greater than self. This is what we know. I haven't "assumed" anything, the evidence is clear and unmistakable.

Here is your theory. You say that as soon as we took that leap forward as far as intelligence and were smart enough to have wild imaginations and the ability to imagine up gods that this must mean god exists. So one day or one year we woke up and we were smart enough to come up with fairy tales. At the same time we were also smart enough to come up with weapons and fire and building brick shelters. This is what enabled our primitive species to advance because we were very weak compared to the bears and tigers. But that intelligence coming up with religion proves nothing and it has only a small part to do with us advancing.

To the contrary, I don't believe we invented spirituality. I believe we've always had it. We are too intrinsically connected to spirituality for it to have simply been wild imagination. It is because of this intrinsic and instinctive connection that we were able to overcome fear of fire, as well as tigers and bears. Not because we simply imagined something not real, but because we felt a connection and derived strength and courage from something very real. It has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with us advancing.

But you are correct. Being religion/spiritual did help pass on your genes.

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

All of this is rationalization from Atheists who want to deny human spiritual connection. If this were true, nature would bear it out. We'd see other advanced upper primates mimicking human behaviors of spirituality, and we simply do not see this in nature.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

Religions are the byproduct of human spiritual connection and evidence that humans have always had a special intrinsic and intuitive connection to something greater than self. Regardless of what you believe with regard to Secularism, the vast and overwhelming majority of humans and societal civilization is rooted in spiritual belief. Lions, tigers and bears simply have no moral laws. The rest of nature operates on instinct, not moral consciousness.

Science half agrees with everything you said. The other half is nonsensical wishful thinking. Can you show me one other person on the web that agrees with you? That because we always have believed that is proof??? I'd like to see it. Otherwise you're just one guy with yet another half baked reason of why you believe.

Hey, you should start a church. Got any followers? I didn't think so.

LMFAO... You act as if "Science" is some kind of thinking rational being that makes determinations of what is correct and incorrect. Those are human attributes, not science. Science doesn't "agree" or "disagree" with anything, it only explores possibility and predicts probabilities. That's ALL Science can ever do. It doesn't make decisions, draw conclusions, assume realities, deem things correct or incorrect, or offer opinions based on perceptions.

I have already explained why I believe what I do. I am a spiritually connected human being. I connect with Spiritual Nature daily. I am aware of the connection the same way you are aware of your connection with your mother. We've covered this before. I don't just blindly believe in something that isn't there. I would not be able to believe unless I had proof. This is why I am not a Christian and don't subscribe to organized religions.

I don't really care if other people believe what I believe or not. It's not a problem for me personally. I'm not like you, I don't have the need to feel validated by the approval of others. I realize that you think this tactic will somehow shake me up, but it doesn't. I couldn't care less. I believe what I know is true, and you will never be able to change that.

 

[Boss]

Now you are pontificating pontification in science.

And only YOU are discussing an absence of time AND space, your Straw Man. I am only discussing t = 0, you are too ignorant to know the difference.

I'm just stating the truth. Science has always been a matter of pontification. Aristotle pontificated thing, Newton rejected those pontifications and made his own, Einstein rejected those and made some more... on and on. That's really all Science is, one pontification after another. As we learn new stuff, we modify the prevailing pontifications. Except, SOME of us are stubborn and want to cling to the old pontifications because we're scared of discovery and knowledge. Some people don't like new concepts coming along and changing what we knew.

There is no straw man. I am discussing the conditions before the universe existed. You are trying to discuss pre-existence using the parameters present in existence. You are trying to argue T=0 after T>0. I am arguing T=Nil. Before the universe existed, time did not exist. Space did not exist. Therefore, physics and physical reality did not exist. You are trying to claim that it did and the principles of something that didn't yet exist, apply to it.

BULLSHIT!

There are no conditions when the universe of energy did not exist. There was a singularity when for a moment there was no motion and for that moment, t = 0, time did not exist, but for that moment all the energy in the universe existed compressed into one small space.

Please present valid scientific proof of Singularity.

 

[Boss]

There are no conditions when the universe of energy did not exist.

LOL... There are no physical conditions before a physical universe existed. You are correct.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gravity cannot be the cause of the motion if it's the result as well. What is gravity without a universe to interact with? Also, there is no gravity in the vacuum of space, but there is expansion.

I'm sorry, WHAT???

Now, I do like the theory of Brane Worlds, I think this is a valid concept relating to quantum mechanics, and presents very viable possibilities. And you are correct, we may never know the answers or understand/comprehend them. But then.... What IS God? Isn't this a concept of some higher dimension we can't comprehend in our physical existence?

You misunderstand, the theory depends on higher dimensions, unseen which create physical interactions with our own. The theory is far beyond quantum mechanics and is more accurately attributed to cosmology.

As for the "expanding, contracting, exploding, rinse and repeat" concept, I do not believe that. In order for this theory to be valid, we would need to realize a universe slowing in motion. For many years, that was the prevailing thought. We've discovered this is not what is happening with the universe, it is accelerating instead of slowing. In addition, the idea of Singularity fails the test of physics because all atoms require space to function as atoms. They cannot exist without space for the nucleus and electrons to operate and function. The idea that all the mass of the universe is compressed into a single ball of energy is baseless because this would still require a massive amount of space, which doesn't exist without space. It's a conundrum that can't be rationalized with physics. Then there is the Uncertainty Principle.

Chuckle, the danger of a little knowledge.

explain why you think that expansion must be slowing? In fact, slowing would not occur until very late in the expansion of the universe. Remember, it is the force of gravity exceeding the velocity of objects that causes the reversal of expansion.

IF what you imagine were true, then how would planets orbit a gravity well? You would say that they had to slow at the apex to change course, but of course we know that isn't true. As you think of all of this, bear in mind that the universe is curved. If you launched a rocket in a given direction, and it were unobstructed, it would eventually end up where it started. Space is curved. So it may be that the expansion never slows as it transitions to contraction, no more than the Earth slows as it rounds the far side of the Sun.

This has led physicists the likes of Stephen Hawking to question whether we ever had a Big Bang or Singularity to begin with. Open String Field Theory suggests our universe may have come to exist when we fused or separated from another universe. The M-verse Theory is interesting, and not out of line with the Brane World idea. However, when we start talking multiple universes, we are also talking about multiple sets of "physics" relating to those universes, and we cannot predict what parameters apply to those. Again, the concept of Spiritual Nature comes into play and becomes a viable consideration. Could be there is very much something to this intrinsic and natural human awareness of something greater than self.... Things that make you go Hmmm?

Generally String Theory points to the idea that interaction with another universe was the catalyst for the Big Bang, not that it is an alternative.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm just stating the truth. Science has always been a matter of pontification. Aristotle pontificated thing, Newton rejected those pontifications and made his own, Einstein rejected those and made some more... on and on. That's really all Science is, one pontification after another. As we learn new stuff, we modify the prevailing pontifications. Except, SOME of us are stubborn and want to cling to the old pontifications because we're scared of discovery and knowledge. Some people don't like new concepts coming along and changing what we knew.

There is no straw man. I am discussing the conditions before the universe existed. You are trying to discuss pre-existence using the parameters present in existence. You are trying to argue T=0 after T>0. I am arguing T=Nil. Before the universe existed, time did not exist. Space did not exist. Therefore, physics and physical reality did not exist. You are trying to claim that it did and the principles of something that didn't yet exist, apply to it.

BULLSHIT!

There are no conditions when the universe of energy did not exist. There was a singularity when for a moment there was no motion and for that moment, t = 0, time did not exist, but for that moment all the energy in the universe existed compressed into one small space.

Please present valid scientific proof of Singularity.

When you present valid proof that there was no time, space or energy. These are all theories, none of which have been scientifically proven. A singularity is as valid a theory at this time as any of the bullshit you have pontificated.

 

[edthecynic]

There are no conditions when the universe of energy did not exist.

LOL... There are no physical conditions before a physical universe existed. You are correct.

Like I said, you have to change what was said and create your Straw Man to argue with. I guess your ego desperately need that to survive.

 

[Boss]

Gravity cannot be the cause of the motion if it's the result as well. What is gravity without a universe to interact with? Also, there is no gravity in the vacuum of space, but there is expansion.

I'm sorry, WHAT???

Gravitational force is not universal and omnipresent throughout the universe. According to Einstein's Relativity Theory, it is the consequence of curvature of spacetime. Now... if it's a consequence of curvature of spacetime, how can it exist if there is no spacetime?

What you are doing is the same as eddy, trying to apply physical concepts to a physical universe that is yet to exist. It doesn't work, it's circular reasoning.

Now, I do like the theory of Brane Worlds, I think this is a valid concept relating to quantum mechanics, and presents very viable possibilities. And you are correct, we may never know the answers or understand/comprehend them. But then.... What IS God? Isn't this a concept of some higher dimension we can't comprehend in our physical existence?

You misunderstand, the theory depends on higher dimensions, unseen which create physical interactions with our own. The theory is far beyond quantum mechanics and is more accurately attributed to cosmology.

Uhm... quantum mechanics specifically deals with cosmology. Wow.... Unseen higher dimensions which create physical reactions with our own? Sounds like a 'magic sky daddy' or 'flying spaghetti monster' to me!

As for the "expanding, contracting, exploding, rinse and repeat" concept, I do not believe that. In order for this theory to be valid, we would need to realize a universe slowing in motion. For many years, that was the prevailing thought. We've discovered this is not what is happening with the universe, it is accelerating instead of slowing. In addition, the idea of Singularity fails the test of physics because all atoms require space to function as atoms. They cannot exist without space for the nucleus and electrons to operate and function. The idea that all the mass of the universe is compressed into a single ball of energy is baseless because this would still require a massive amount of space, which doesn't exist without space. It's a conundrum that can't be rationalized with physics. Then there is the Uncertainty Principle.

Chuckle, the danger of a little knowledge.

explain why you think that expansion must be slowing? In fact, slowing would not occur until very late in the expansion of the universe. Remember, it is the force of gravity exceeding the velocity of objects that causes the reversal of expansion.

If the forces of gravity were working on the motion, the velocity would be decreasing not accelerating. Toss a ball into the air and see how gravity effects the ball. The velocity decreases from the moment the ball is released, and continues to decrease until it reaches the apex, then it reverses course and comes back to where it began. The ball simply does not ACCELERATE after leaving your hand! The universe is not just continuing to expand, it is expanding ever-faster, therefore, contraction is impossible. This is an outdated theory!

IF what you imagine were true, then how would planets orbit a gravity well? You would say that they had to slow at the apex to change course, but of course we know that isn't true. As you think of all of this, bear in mind that the universe is curved. If you launched a rocket in a given direction, and it were unobstructed, it would eventually end up where it started. Space is curved. So it may be that the expansion never slows as it transitions to contraction, no more than the Earth slows as it rounds the far side of the Sun.

The universe is not a loop. Planets orbit beause of gravity. The moon is in constant free fall. It doesn't hit the earth because it orbits around it. The earth acts the same way around the sun, it's in constant free fall because of gravity.

This has led physicists the likes of Stephen Hawking to question whether we ever had a Big Bang or Singularity to begin with. Open String Field Theory suggests our universe may have come to exist when we fused or separated from another universe. The M-verse Theory is interesting, and not out of line with the Brane World idea. However, when we start talking multiple universes, we are also talking about multiple sets of "physics" relating to those universes, and we cannot predict what parameters apply to those. Again, the concept of Spiritual Nature comes into play and becomes a viable consideration. Could be there is very much something to this intrinsic and natural human awareness of something greater than self.... Things that make you go Hmmm?

Generally String Theory points to the idea that interaction with another universe was the catalyst for the Big Bang, not that it is an alternative.

Yes. It is an alternative. Google Stephen Hawking and Big Bang, and you will find the articles and videos of Hawking explaining this. Singularity is a theory that is quickly becoming outdated and obsolete as we explore quantum physics. But... Just like the old "flat earth" theories, there are some humans who simply don't want to let go of conventional wisdom.

 

[Boss]

When you present valid proof that there was no time, space or energy. These are all theories, none of which have been scientifically proven. A singularity is as valid a theory at this time as any of the bullshit you have pontificated.

You stated Singularity as if it's a known fact of Science. IT IS NOT! That was my only point. Now you are admitting it is a theory, which I have no problem with. As long as it's clarified, Singularity is NOT a fact.

Spacetime (space + time) is one of the four dimensional aspects of the universe. To argue that these existed BEFORE the physical universe existed is like saying your brain existed BEFORE your parents conceived you. It simply defies logic and reason.

 

[edthecynic]

When you present valid proof that there was no time, space or energy. These are all theories, none of which have been scientifically proven. A singularity is as valid a theory at this time as any of the bullshit you have pontificated.

You stated Singularity as if it's a known fact of Science. IT IS NOT! That was my only point. Now you are admitting it is a theory, which I have no problem with. As long as it's clarified, Singularity is NOT a fact.

Spacetime (space + time) is one of the four dimensional aspects of the universe. To argue that these existed BEFORE the physical universe existed is like saying your brain existed BEFORE your parents conceived you. It simply defies logic and reason.

BULLSHIT!

Everyone here has been discussing theory, except you who have been pontificating as if you were God.

Space/time is not ONE of the 4 dimensions, it is all 4, 3 of space and one of time. Now you will not admit you have no idea what you posted and instead claim that you were calling spacetime 4D all along.

No one is arguing your Straw Man no matter how many times you repeat it.
I have been arguing that energy has always existed and will always exist in the same total quantity and was existing compressed into an extremely small SPACE at the singularity when the universe was neither expanding nor contracting at t = 0. That is quite different from the bullshit Straw Man you have been arguing against, but you pretend you are too stupid to know the difference so you can continue to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes as far as one is concerned he landed in the future

Nope, he was always in the present.

LOL... The only way we can experience time is in the present. If you go back in time, you still experience it as present. If you go forward in time, you still experience it as present. The people around you also experience time in the present. There is no other way for human beings to experience time except present. That does not mean your place it time remained the same.

According to Einstein, time is relative to the observer. In my scenario, the traveling twin's time is behind that of the stationary twin and he is in the future relative to his perception of time. The stationary twin's perception has not changed. Both experience time as present, there is no way for humans to experience time any other way. If we could do that, time travel is irrelevant, we'd just decide we want to experience the future or past time.

Look... think of it another way. Both twins have atomic clocks and digital calendars tracking their time. They both experience time passing the same. However, since the traveling twin's time slowed down as he traveled, when he returns, his calendar says it's 2012. The stationary twin's calendar says it's 2014. So is the traveling twin in 2014 or 2012? If he is in 2014, then he has traveled to the future. His perception, clock and calendar all say he is in 2012. Yes, both are experiencing time as "present" because that's the only way we can experience time.

His perception, clock and calendar all say he is in 2012

the traveler once landed fully knows

he shipped over time

his clock and calendar will be just like his

older brothers clock and calendar 2014

plus he sees his brother has aged

more then he has

 

[sealybobo]

BULLSHIT!

There are no conditions when the universe of energy did not exist. There was a singularity when for a moment there was no motion and for that moment, t = 0, time did not exist, but for that moment all the energy in the universe existed compressed into one small space.

Please present valid scientific proof of Singularity.

When you present valid proof that there was no time, space or energy. These are all theories, none of which have been scientifically proven. A singularity is as valid a theory at this time as any of the bullshit you have pontificated.

Boss thinks that because science isn't perfect he gets to use flawed theories.

 

[sealybobo]

There are no conditions when the universe of energy did not exist.

LOL... There are no physical conditions before a physical universe existed. You are correct.

How do you know this? A little ball that weighed a billion katrillion tons floated into our nothingness and all the stars and planets and moons and meteors came from that little ball. And maybe there was nothing here but then a black hole shot out our big bang. We/You don't know.

Looks like you are all alone with your theories.