How did the Universe get here?

[hipeter924]

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.

I find this argument on You Tube a lot, usually by some Islamic guy that thinks he knows everything about the universe.

First off, the notion that the universe has to be 'finite' is false, for a long time there have been multiple theories of a circular universe, the one that I prefer is the one that begins with a 'big bang' and ends with a 'big crunch, meaning that the universe never needs to be 'created' as the building blocks for the universe have always existed - and universes form and collapse.

So far, what we can sure of so far is that universes can theoretically expand and contract in size, and that there was some kind of 'big bang' event that formed the universe as we know it.

That all said, the question of whether there is a god, is separate from the question of what formed/created the universe i.e. because x is true or false, does not logically imply that y is true or false.

You can have a universe that exists upon what we know by modern science, and still have a god exist.

 

[Indeependent]

I recommend naming this thread, "Cause Steven Hawkings Says So!...".

 

[Boss]

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.

I have made it clear that I am presenting theories all along...

Please show me in the above post, where you articulated this as a theory? Where anything you said was framed as THEORY and not FACT?

Above is my first post in this thread, you worthless lying POS. Stop taking my shit out of context!

I have not lied or taken a thing out of context. I posted exactly what you said, you can follow the link back to the original post if you like. There is nothing there to indicate you were talking about a theory, you presented it as fact. Now you want to run back to another post you made to someone else, where you mentioned two theories for an infinite universe. However, even in THAT argument, you failed to mention the numerous theories of a finite universe which completely contradict those two theories. All through this thread, you have tried to strong arm your theories into fact by being a verbal bully. I've popped you in that smart ass nose a few times, now you want to get surly and call me names. I'm used to that on the Internet, it's how bullies behave here.

On your massive sucking black hole theory, here is what Hawking has to say:

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes' : Nature News & Comment

 

[Boss]

First off, the notion that the universe has to be 'finite' is false, for a long time there have been multiple theories of a circular universe, the one that I prefer is the one that begins with a 'big bang' and ends with a 'big crunch, meaning that the universe never needs to be 'created' as the building blocks for the universe have always existed - and universes form and collapse.

So far, what we can sure of so far is that universes can theoretically expand and contract in size, and that there was some kind of 'big bang' event that formed the universe as we know it.

And here you go presenting a theory as if it's fact. What is it with you people? Did you flunk basic science in high school or something? Theories are theories, not FACTS! Especially when they deal with something completely beyond our ability to test and observe.

What you state that so far we can be sure of, is simply NOT TRUE! We are not SURE about anything! We don't KNOW if there was a Big Bang. We don't KNOW if the universe contracts... so far it hasn't, and since it's accelerating and not slowing, it's unlikely that it does contract. We don't KNOW what happens inside a Black Hole... Hawking, who was instrumental in developing most of the modern theories of black holes, is not even certain they exist anymore. Nor is he certain about Singularity.

Over and over in this thread, I am seeing people wade into the debate with an opinion and a theory, presenting them as if they are facts. Refusing to even entertain another thought or idea, as if something has conferred supremacy upon their opinion above all others. Are you really that full of yourselves?

 

[hipeter924]

First off, the notion that the universe has to be 'finite' is false, for a long time there have been multiple theories of a circular universe, the one that I prefer is the one that begins with a 'big bang' and ends with a 'big crunch, meaning that the universe never needs to be 'created' as the building blocks for the universe have always existed - and universes form and collapse.

So far, what we can sure of so far is that universes can theoretically expand and contract in size, and that there was some kind of 'big bang' event that formed the universe as we know it.

And here you go presenting a theory as if it's fact. What is it with you people? Did you flunk basic science in high school or something? Theories are theories, not FACTS! Especially when they deal with something completely beyond our ability to test and observe.

What you state that so far we can be sure of, is simply NOT TRUE! We are not SURE about anything! We don't KNOW if there was a Big Bang. We don't KNOW if the universe contracts... so far it hasn't, and since it's accelerating and not slowing, it's unlikely that it does contract. We don't KNOW what happens inside a Black Hole... Hawking, who was instrumental in developing most of the modern theories of black holes, is not even certain they exist anymore. Nor is he certain about Singularity.

Over and over in this thread, I am seeing people wade into the debate with an opinion and a theory, presenting them as if they are facts. Refusing to even entertain another thought or idea, as if something has conferred supremacy upon their opinion above all others. Are you really that full of yourselves?

Scientific theories are based on empirical evidence and complex scientific equations, the 'theory' of gravity is also a theory.

Before you start this 'its just a theory' nonsense think on that, because a scientific 'theory' is different to a theory opinion like 'there could be vampires'.

It is FACT, just as 1+1=2 is a fact, and that is a correct analogy as mathematics is used to establish these theories, not just someone getting up in a room and thinking and advocating purely upon basis of their opinion, and claiming 'god did it'.

But never mind, you are lost to the scientific community, only hope that one day you pick up his book and read it, and understand that what he says in his book is actually expressing things in word form, so that everyone doesn't have to attend a university and get a PHD in it to understand it.

Edit: I said, "So far, what we can sure of so far is that universes can theoretically expand and contract in size, and that there was some kind of 'big bang' event that formed the universe as we know it."

You are describing 'singularities', which I didn't mention, I said 'theoretically', and that is the key word here, as that implies that there is a basis in scientific theories thus far, that it could be the case.

So thanks for making shit up about my posts that I never actually said, nor implied.

 

[edthecynic]

I have made it clear that I am presenting theories all along...

Please show me in the above post, where you articulated this as a theory? Where anything you said was framed as THEORY and not FACT?

Above is my first post in this thread, you worthless lying POS. Stop taking my shit out of context!

I have not lied or taken a thing out of context. I posted exactly what you said, you can follow the link back to the original post if you like. There is nothing there to indicate you were talking about a theory, you presented it as fact. Now you want to run back to another post you made to someone else, where you mentioned two theories for an infinite universe. However, even in THAT argument, you failed to mention the numerous theories of a finite universe which completely contradict those two theories. All through this thread, you have tried to strong arm your theories into fact by being a verbal bully. I've popped you in that smart ass nose a few times, now you want to get surly and call me names. I'm used to that on the Internet, it's how bullies behave here.

Why am I not surprised that such a loathsome worthless lying POS like YOU will not admit the truth.

First of all, the post was made to everyone in this forum who chose to read it.

Second, having said from the start that the Big Crunch was a theory, I do not need to repeat that it is a theory it over and over because YOU are a stupid f***ing too ignorant to remember what was said from the start.

And lastly, thank you for showing the board just how stupid you are when it comes to the English language. The post I answered said he didn't know a single astronomer who thought the universe was infinite. He obviously knew of the theories about a finite universe already and therefore didn't need to know about finite universe theories. It was obvious to anyone on this thread that he was only lacking knowledge about infinite universe theories, except to an ignorant boob like you that is. So why should I tell him what he already knows simply because YOU are a stupid ????

Now go F*** yourself

 

[Boss]

Scientific theories are based on empirical evidence and complex scientific equations, the 'theory' of gravity is also a theory.

Before you start this 'its just a theory' nonsense think on that, because a scientific 'theory' is different to a theory opinion like 'there could be vampires'.

Nope... Don't get to use the "Special Science Theory Rule" here. You can neither test or observe the origin of the universe, so any "theory" you have is no different than an opinion. Gravity is different, you can test, observe and falsify it. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces of the universe.

It is FACT, just as 1+1=2 is a fact, and that is a correct analogy as mathematics is used to establish these theories, not just someone getting up in a room and thinking and advocating purely upon basis of their opinion, and claiming 'god did it'.

No, what you are presenting are NOT facts. They are theories. Nothing has "established" them, some scientists believe them and some don't. For all intents and purposes, they are someone getting up in a room and thinking/advocating purely on basis of their opinion. But you are demonstrating what is so dangerous about the new found RELIGION of science, as opposed to actual science. It's this kind of fucking hubris we must REJECT. You do not own facts and truth. No one has bestowed you with that authority.

But never mind, you are lost to the scientific community, only hope that one day you pick up his book and read it, and understand that what he says in his book is actually expressing things in word form, so that everyone doesn't have to attend a university and get a PHD in it to understand it.

No, I am not lost to science. I am a scientist with a degree in science that I am proud of. You are a religious hack, practicing an Atheistic Science religion on a mission to destroy God. You will be fought and rejected by society.

Edit: I said, "So far, what we can sure of so far is that universes can theoretically expand and contract in size, and that there was some kind of 'big bang' event that formed the universe as we know it."

You are describing 'singularities', which I didn't mention, I said 'theoretically', and that is the key word here, as that implies that there is a basis in scientific theories thus far, that it could be the case.

No, you are saying we can be sure of something, then you say "theoretically" but you just finished lecturing me as to how "theories" are "facts" in science. So what you are actually saying is we can be sure of what you believe are scientific facts, and you are wrong. We can't be sure of anything, and what you've presented are not facts.

 

[Boss]

Why am I not surprised that such a loathsome worthless lying POS like YOU will not admit the truth.

First of all, the post was made to everyone in this forum who chose to read it.

Second, having said from the start that the Big Crunch was a theory, I do not need to repeat that it is a theory it over and over because YOU are a stupid f***ing too ignorant to remember what was said from the start.

And lastly, thank you for showing the board just how stupid you are when it comes to the English language. The post I answered said he didn't know a single astronomer who thought the universe was infinite. He obviously knew of the theories about a finite universe already and therefore didn't need to know about finite universe theories. It was obvious to anyone on this thread that he was only lacking knowledge about infinite universe theories, except to an ignorant boob like you that is. So why should I tell him what he already knows simply because YOU are a stupid ????

Now go F*** yourself

Here's what you said again, so the whole board knows who is lying:

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.

Not a word about this being a theory. Nothing to indicate you are speaking theoretically. No mention of the dozens of scientists who have completely rejected this theory. It is presented as irrefutable and unassailable fact of life that can't be challenged or questioned.

You apparently belong to the same "Church" as the Hipster.

To reiterate... we do NOT know the conditions before the universe existed. We do NOT know if there was a Big Bang or Singularity. We do NOT know about any moments where t=0 or there was no motion. We do NOT know all the energy was compressed into one small space. These are all THEORIES. They may be true, they may be false, they are not facts. In fact, I have presented recent commentary from Stephen Fucking Hawking, which quite simply rejects these theories and proposes new theories in their place... not to say that his new theories are facts either. Still, they are only theories.

Now, all I can say is THANK GOD it is Stephen Hawking who is challenging your theories, because I do believe if it were anyone else, you would launch into an all-out attack on their credibility and credentials, and stubbornly insist your theory was correct and unchallengeable.

 

[edthecynic]

According to the equation e=m times the quantity c squared. c2 is a quantity, not time.

c= speed of light. Yes, it is a quantity measured by time. Tell me how you can quantify speed without time? While you are at it, tell me how mass can occupy no space?

If Energy = Mass times speed of light squared, then Energy requires space and time to exist.

Tell me where I said there is no space, that is YOUR Straw Man. The argument is that time is no longer considered a dimension of space/time. There are only dimensions of space, This is why time travel to the past or future is impossible. A person can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of their motion.

You desperately need some courses in physics!

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!



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.



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.

I know what physics says. e=mc2. IF M=0 (it has to if space = 0) and C2=0 (has to if T=0) then E=0x02, or ZERO! It doesn't matter how much you use caps on ORDER or CHANGE... Order of change, rate of change... it cannot happen without TIME. Nothing can happen without TIME. It would seem like this is a really simple concept that even a total retard could grasp, but apparently you are having trouble with it.

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.

Why am I not surprised that such a loathsome worthless lying POS like YOU will not admit the truth.

First of all, the post was made to everyone in this forum who chose to read it.

Second, having said from the start that the Big Crunch was a theory, I do not need to repeat that it is a theory it over and over because YOU are a stupid f***ing too ignorant to remember what was said from the start.

And lastly, thank you for showing the board just how stupid you are when it comes to the English language. The post I answered said he didn't know a single astronomer who thought the universe was infinite. He obviously knew of the theories about a finite universe already and therefore didn't need to know about finite universe theories. It was obvious to anyone on this thread that he was only lacking knowledge about infinite universe theories, except to an ignorant boob like you that is. So why should I tell him what he already knows simply because YOU are a stupid ????

Now go F*** yourself

Here's what you said again, so the whole board knows who is lying:

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.

Not a word about this being a theory. Nothing to indicate you are speaking theoretically. No mention of the dozens of scientists who have completely rejected this theory. It is presented as irrefutable and unassailable fact of life that can't be challenged or questioned.

You apparently belong to the same "Church" as the Hipster.

To reiterate... we do NOT know the conditions before the universe existed. We do NOT know if there was a Big Bang or Singularity. We do NOT know about any moments where t=0 or there was no motion. We do NOT know all the energy was compressed into one small space. These are all THEORIES. They may be true, they may be false, they are not facts. In fact, I have presented recent commentary from Stephen Fucking Hawking, which quite simply rejects these theories and proposes new theories in their place... not to say that his new theories are facts either. Still, they are only theories.

Now, all I can say is THANK GOD it is Stephen Hawking who is challenging your theories, because I do believe if it were anyone else, you would launch into an all-out attack on their credibility and credentials, and stubbornly insist your theory was correct and unchallengeable.

Again you are stamping your little feet and taking that out of context with all of the posts that came before it as if it was an isolated statement. If you weren't changing what I say to create your Straw Man I wouldn't have to repeat what the Big Crunch, which I stated was a theory the very first time I posted it, so forcefully.

As you recall you were pontificating incredibly stupid stuff like the speed of light equalling 0. The speed of light is a constant, it never equals zero and after I pointed that out to you, you just pontificate that the speed of light = 0. So we were arguing about your pontifications and the Straw Men you made to argue against the Big Crunch, and so I restated the basic principles of the Big Crunch to counter your Straw Man built on your pontifications. It was not an isolated statement, but you must dishonestly isolate it because you are too dishonest to admit how stupid you have to be to argue that c, the speed of light, can = 0 in the equation e=mc2. And knowing you, you will isolate my post again and claim that under your pontificated conditions c can and does = 0. Prove me right again, I know you like the back of my hand, you can't admit that c is a constant and cannot = 0.

 

[September]

Tiamat

 

[edthecynic]

Tiamat

More believable than the BS BosS has posted.

 

[Boss]

Again you are stamping your little feet and taking that out of context with all of the posts that came before it as if it was an isolated statement. If you weren't changing what I say to create your Straw Man I wouldn't have to repeat what the Big Crunch, which I stated was a theory the very first time I posted it, so forcefully.

As you recall you were pontificating incredibly stupid stuff like the speed of light equalling 0. The speed of light is a constant, it never equals zero and after I pointed that out to you, you just pontificate that the speed of light = 0. So we were arguing about your pontifications and the Straw Men you made to argue against the Big Crunch, and so I restated the basic principles of the Big Crunch to counter your Straw Man built on your pontifications. It was not an isolated statement, but you must dishonestly isolate it because you are too dishonest to admit how stupid you have to be to argue that c, the speed of light, can = 0 in the equation e=mc2. And knowing you, you will isolate my post again and claim that under your pontificated conditions c can and does = 0. Prove me right again, I know you like the back of my hand, you can't admit that c is a constant and cannot = 0.

I am not stamping my feet or taking anything out of context. I haven't changed your post in any way, other than to highlight the aspects which demonstrate you were pontificating as fact, things that are NOT facts. I have posted what Hawking and others have said regarding your Big Crunch theory, demonstrating it is out of date as a theory and no longer considered valid. You still continue to present it as fact when it is not, never was.

You can think it's "stupid" all you like, if time and space do not exist, the speed of light cannot exist. First, there is no space in which particles or waves of light can exist, and second, there is no space for light to travel so you can't measure the speed of it. The speed of light is only a constant when there is a physical universe for it to exist in, before that, it means nothing, it doesn't exist. If there is no space, there can be no mass, space doesn't exist for it. Without mass, there is no physical energy, there can't be, it's not possible without space for energy to exist. You continue trying to imagine a universe already exists before it exists.

I am not arguing that c isn't a constant in a physical universe. That's what you are attempting to morph my argument into and call it stupid or a straw man. I am arguing that nothing physical can exist without a physical universe for it to exist in. Not energy, not light, not gravity, not time... nothing. There is not a physical universe until there IS a physical universe.

By your OWN admission, without time and space, you have NO dimensions of reality in a physical universe. This means, nothing in physics applies. You can discard all the formulas and laws, they do not matter if a physical universe doesn't exist in reality. We can argue round and round about it, that is something you can't dispute. You can THINK all kinds of things... those are your OPINIONS, and I don't have a problem with you having an opinion. But you're not going to present your opinions as facts, they simply aren't facts.

 

[edthecynic]

you are too dishonest to admit how stupid you have to be to argue that c, the speed of light, can = 0 in the equation e=mc2. And knowing you, you will isolate my post again and claim that under your pontificated conditions c can and does = 0. Prove me right again, I know you like the back of my hand, you can't admit that c is a constant and cannot = 0.

if time and space do not exist, the speed of light cannot exist. First, there is no space in which particles or waves of light can exist, and second, there is no space for light to travel so you can't measure the speed of it. The speed of light is only a constant when there is a physical universe for it to exist in, .

I own you!

 

[edthecynic]

I haven't changed your post in any way, ...

By your OWN admission, ...

Now I never said you changed my posts, I said you created a Straw Man, like pretending I said you changed my post, or saying I admitted something.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Tiamat

Time out......

 

[PostmodernProph]

you are too dishonest to admit how stupid you have to be to argue that c, the speed of light, can = 0 in the equation e=mc2. And knowing you, you will isolate my post again and claim that under your pontificated conditions c can and does = 0. Prove me right again, I know you like the back of my hand, you can't admit that c is a constant and cannot = 0.

if time and space do not exist, the speed of light cannot exist. First, there is no space in which particles or waves of light can exist, and second, there is no space for light to travel so you can't measure the speed of it. The speed of light is only a constant when there is a physical universe for it to exist in, .

I own you!

lol....

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"I don't know. It was here already when I arrived."

 

[hipeter924]

Tiamat

More believable than the BS BosS has posted.

Boss must come from the worst area of the Bible Belt, the next step is for him to start raving against evolution and stem cell research. He thinks having a 'science degree' makes the light shine out of his ass.

 

[edthecynic]

Tiamat

More believable than the BS BosS has posted.

Boss must come from the worst area of the Bible Belt, the next step is for him to start raving against evolution and stem cell research. He thinks having a 'science degree' makes the light shine out of his ass.

He doesn't have a science degree. He doesn't understand the most basic principles of science. Even after he posts videos that say in science time is not like the intuitive way we normally perceive it as a continuous flow, but like slices of bread or individual frames in a movie roll of film, IOW an order of events, when I tell him the same thing he posted in the videos he chose he thinks I'm wrong because he doesn't understand I'm saying the same thing. He thinks t=0, which in his own video would be the starting frame in the movie reel, means nothing exists.

In science t=0 is the starting point, starting space, starting place, whatever in an order of events. For example, if someone was going to take a trip in their car from their house to some city, t = 0 would be their starting point, it does not mean the car or the road or the city does not exist, it means they have not moved yet. I means the car has not yet moved from the garage over the road to the city at a constant rate of speed set by their cruse control.

 

[edthecynic]

For reference:

HowStuffWorks "How Black Holes Work"

What is a Black Hole?
A black hole is what remains when a massive star dies.
I*f you have read How Stars Work, then you know that a star is a huge, amazing fusion reactor. Because stars are so massive and made out of gas, there is an intense gravitational field that is always trying to collapse the star. The fusion reactions happening in the core are like a giant fusion bomb that is trying to explode the star. The balance between the gravitational forces and the explosive forces is what defines the size of the star.
As the star dies, the nuclear fusion reactions stop because the fuel for these reactions gets burned up. At the same time, the star's gravity pulls material inward and compresses the core. As the core compresses, it heats up and eventually creates a supernova explosion in which the material and radiation blasts out into space. What remains is the highly compressed, and extremely massive,core. The core's gravity is so strong that even light cannot escape.
This object is now a black hole and literally disappears from view. Because the core's gravity is so strong, the core sinks through the fabric of space-time, creating a hole in space-time -- this is why the object is called a black hole.
The core becomes the central part of the black hole called the singularity. The opening of the hole is called the event horizon.
You can think of the event horizon as the mouth of the black hole. Once something passes the event horizon, it is gone for good. Once inside the event horizon, all "events" (points in space-time) stop, and nothing (even light) can escape. The radius of the event horizon is called the Schwarzschild radius, named after astronomer Karl Schwarzschild, whose work led to the theory of black holes.