if not evolution

[ding]

Yes we can say that with certainty.

We live in a universe which is governed by rules.

To say the universe was not created according to natural rules is ludicrous. There are even elegant mathematical equations which describe that process and they follow the rules of conservation of mass and quantum mechanics.

Actually, it's not ludicrous. In fact, a standing theory of physics is that the close you come to the event horizon of the universe, , the more the physical laws of the universe, as we understand them, break down, and cease to function properly. So, there is every reason to believe that the universe came into being without being beholden to any of the laws of nature as we understand them.

Which is where inflation theory comes into the discussion. And according to inflation theory, space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event according to the law of conservation which must have existed prior to the event itself.

True, however, according to the theory, those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe, and prove nothing beyond the possibility of cyclic expansion, and contraction, and leads us no closer to this "evidence" of God.

Incidentally, please don't ask me to offer opinions any more technical than this. I admit I am not an astrophysicist, and only have the most basic, rudimentary understanding of the theories. I only came across them when studying the Big Bang theory, and your absolute certainty that all reality "started" from there.

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, it's not ludicrous. In fact, a standing theory of physics is that the close you come to the event horizon of the universe, , the more the physical laws of the universe, as we understand them, break down, and cease to function properly. So, there is every reason to believe that the universe came into being without being beholden to any of the laws of nature as we understand them.

Which is where inflation theory comes into the discussion. And according to inflation theory, space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event according to the law of conservation which must have existed prior to the event itself.

True, however, according to the theory, those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe, and prove nothing beyond the possibility of cyclic expansion, and contraction, and leads us no closer to this "evidence" of God.

Incidentally, please don't ask me to offer opinions any more technical than this. I admit I am not an astrophysicist, and only have the most basic, rudimentary understanding of the theories. I only came across them when studying the Big Bang theory, and your absolute certainty that all reality "started" from there.

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

 

[ding]

Which is where inflation theory comes into the discussion. And according to inflation theory, space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event according to the law of conservation which must have existed prior to the event itself.

True, however, according to the theory, those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe, and prove nothing beyond the possibility of cyclic expansion, and contraction, and leads us no closer to this "evidence" of God.

Incidentally, please don't ask me to offer opinions any more technical than this. I admit I am not an astrophysicist, and only have the most basic, rudimentary understanding of the theories. I only came across them when studying the Big Bang theory, and your absolute certainty that all reality "started" from there.

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

 

[Czernobog]

True, however, according to the theory, those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe, and prove nothing beyond the possibility of cyclic expansion, and contraction, and leads us no closer to this "evidence" of God.

Incidentally, please don't ask me to offer opinions any more technical than this. I admit I am not an astrophysicist, and only have the most basic, rudimentary understanding of the theories. I only came across them when studying the Big Bang theory, and your absolute certainty that all reality "started" from there.

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

Because then we circle back to the tunnelling effect of quantum physics, and the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe. The current expansion of the universe has a beginning. That doesn't automatically follow that the universe had a beginning. Hence, the distinction of this universe.

More accurately, I would concede that this expansion of the universe had a beginning.

 

[ding]

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

Because then we circle back to the tunnelling effect of quantum physics, and the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe. The current expansion of the universe has a beginning. That doesn't automatically follow that the universe had a beginning. Hence, the distinction of this universe.

More accurately, I would concede that this expansion of the universe had a beginning.

All universes created through quantum tunneling events as described by inflation theory would have a beginning. If indeed there are others.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

Because then we circle back to the tunnelling effect of quantum physics, and the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe. The current expansion of the universe has a beginning. That doesn't automatically follow that the universe had a beginning. Hence, the distinction of this universe.

More accurately, I would concede that this expansion of the universe had a beginning.

All universes created through quantum tunneling events as described by inflation theory would have a beginning. If indeed there are others.

You seem hell-bent on trying to tie the expansion of the universe to a unique, singular event, even as the evidence is inconclusive. Why is that?

 

[ding]

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

Because then we circle back to the tunnelling effect of quantum physics, and the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe. The current expansion of the universe has a beginning. That doesn't automatically follow that the universe had a beginning. Hence, the distinction of this universe.

More accurately, I would concede that this expansion of the universe had a beginning.

All universes created through quantum tunneling events as described by inflation theory would have a beginning. If indeed there are others.

You seem hell-bent on trying to tie the expansion of the universe to a unique, singular event, even as the evidence is inconclusive. Why is that?

You can't know what something is by how it starts. You can only know what it is by how it turns out. But that doesn't mean you don't need to know all the steps.

I could say the same thing about you. You seem hell bent on dismissing the evidence that tells us the universe had a beginning.

1. red shift
2. background radiation
3. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
4. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

There really is no other way. It is not possible for our universe to be eternal.

 

[sealybobo]

True, however, according to the theory, those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe, and prove nothing beyond the possibility of cyclic expansion, and contraction, and leads us no closer to this "evidence" of God.

Incidentally, please don't ask me to offer opinions any more technical than this. I admit I am not an astrophysicist, and only have the most basic, rudimentary understanding of the theories. I only came across them when studying the Big Bang theory, and your absolute certainty that all reality "started" from there.

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

What was here before our universe?

What is beyond our universe?

More and more scientists are embracing the multiverse theory.

Now I don’t buy the hypothesis that with infinite multiverses that there are other versions of you. I think that’s stupid. Overthinking it. The fact is there’s something beyond the end of every wall. There are no ends. This is just one bubble.

Call it god because it is infinite

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now I don’t buy the hypothesis that with infinite multiverses that there are other versions of you

Sorry buddy, can't have infinite universes without infinite "you"s. There are not only other versions of you in the infinite multiverse paradigm, there are infinitely many of them.

 

[sealybobo]

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

Because then we circle back to the tunnelling effect of quantum physics, and the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe. The current expansion of the universe has a beginning. That doesn't automatically follow that the universe had a beginning. Hence, the distinction of this universe.

More accurately, I would concede that this expansion of the universe had a beginning.

All universes created through quantum tunneling events as described by inflation theory would have a beginning. If indeed there are others.

You seem hell-bent on trying to tie the expansion of the universe to a unique, singular event, even as the evidence is inconclusive. Why is that?

You can't know what something is by how it starts. You can only know what it is by how it turns out. But that doesn't mean you don't need to know all the steps.

I could say the same thing about you. You seem hell bent on dismissing the evidence that tells us the universe had a beginning.

1. red shift
2. background radiation
3. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
4. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

There really is no other way. It is not possible for our universe to be eternal.

This universe is not eternal. It had a beginning but what about the universe that was existing before our universe? Our universe may just be one bubble in a multiverse of universes. If you were god you could travel between the dark matter and see the other multiverses but you aren’t.

It’s funny a god can be eternal but you dont think anything existed 17 billion years before the Big Bang.

Your primitive human brain can’t comprehend all the possibilities but Neal Debra’s Tyson can

 

[ding]

Our reality does not extend beyond our space time boundary. It is not possible to travel beyond it. Space time is curved.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

By saying that those "rules" are "leftovers" from the previous universe you have just proven my point. The universe was created through rules which were in place prior to the creation of space and time to govern that process.

Okay. let's go with your conclusion. So what?

So we have established the boundary conditions.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space and time were created according to the laws of nature.
3. And then began to expand and cool.

Okay. So long as we're in agreement that this universe had a beginning. It's a rather important distinction.

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

What was here before our universe?

What is beyond our universe?

More and more scientists are embracing the multiverse theory.

Now I don’t buy the hypothesis that with infinite multiverses that there are other versions of you. I think that’s stupid. Overthinking it. The fact is there’s something beyond the end of every wall. There are no ends. This is just one bubble.

Call it god because it is infinite

According to the theory of inflation a false vacuum was here before.

Multiverse theory is based upon inflation theory.

 

[ding]

Do you know of any other universes?

And why would that be an important distinction to you?

I would expect the exact same thing to happen in that other universe. Beings that know and create would eventually arise. It is hardwired into the laws of nature as we know it.

Because then we circle back to the tunnelling effect of quantum physics, and the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe. The current expansion of the universe has a beginning. That doesn't automatically follow that the universe had a beginning. Hence, the distinction of this universe.

More accurately, I would concede that this expansion of the universe had a beginning.

All universes created through quantum tunneling events as described by inflation theory would have a beginning. If indeed there are others.

You seem hell-bent on trying to tie the expansion of the universe to a unique, singular event, even as the evidence is inconclusive. Why is that?

You can't know what something is by how it starts. You can only know what it is by how it turns out. But that doesn't mean you don't need to know all the steps.

I could say the same thing about you. You seem hell bent on dismissing the evidence that tells us the universe had a beginning.

1. red shift
2. background radiation
3. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
4. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

There really is no other way. It is not possible for our universe to be eternal.

This universe is not eternal. It had a beginning but what about the universe that was existing before our universe? Our universe may just be one bubble in a multiverse of universes. If you were god you could travel between the dark matter and see the other multiverses but you aren’t.

It’s funny a god can be eternal but you dont think anything existed 17 billion years before the Big Bang.

Your primitive human brain can’t comprehend all the possibilities but Neal Debra’s Tyson can

For us, no other reality exists outside of our universe. As far as we are concerned, nothing did exist before space and time were created. Time has no measure outside of our universe.

I think you are the one who can't comprehend all the possibilities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As far as we are concerned, nothing did exist before space and time were created. Time has no measure outside of our universe

And as far as we are concerned, nothing exists over the cosmological horizon. But there is no reason to believe that nothing is there, and every reason to believe there is plenty there.

 

[sealybobo]

Because then we circle back to the tunnelling effect of quantum physics, and the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe. The current expansion of the universe has a beginning. That doesn't automatically follow that the universe had a beginning. Hence, the distinction of this universe.

More accurately, I would concede that this expansion of the universe had a beginning.

All universes created through quantum tunneling events as described by inflation theory would have a beginning. If indeed there are others.

You seem hell-bent on trying to tie the expansion of the universe to a unique, singular event, even as the evidence is inconclusive. Why is that?

You can't know what something is by how it starts. You can only know what it is by how it turns out. But that doesn't mean you don't need to know all the steps.

I could say the same thing about you. You seem hell bent on dismissing the evidence that tells us the universe had a beginning.

1. red shift
2. background radiation
3. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
4. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

There really is no other way. It is not possible for our universe to be eternal.

This universe is not eternal. It had a beginning but what about the universe that was existing before our universe? Our universe may just be one bubble in a multiverse of universes. If you were god you could travel between the dark matter and see the other multiverses but you aren’t.

It’s funny a god can be eternal but you dont think anything existed 17 billion years before the Big Bang.

Your primitive human brain can’t comprehend all the possibilities but Neal Debra’s Tyson can

For us, no other reality exists outside of our universe. As far as we are concerned, nothing did exist before space and time were created. Time has no measure outside of our universe.

I think you are the one who can't comprehend all the possibilities.

No I get all that and hoped you did too

 

[sealybobo]

Now I don’t buy the hypothesis that with infinite multiverses that there are other versions of you

Sorry buddy, can't have infinite universes without infinite "you"s. There are not only other versions of you in the infinite multiverse paradigm, there are infinitely many of them.

Impossible. My parents had to meet. Their parents had to meet. 100,000 generations avoided dying before they had me. Every other universe is unique

 

[sealybobo]

The atoms that made me aren’t the atoms in other multiverses. Whatever started life on earth only exists in this universe

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every other universe is unique

Sorry, not possible, with infinite universes. Take any state of any universe, and , in infinite multiverse theory, that state has occured and will occur an infinite number of times.

 

[sealybobo]

Because then we circle back to the tunnelling effect of quantum physics, and the cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe. The current expansion of the universe has a beginning. That doesn't automatically follow that the universe had a beginning. Hence, the distinction of this universe.

More accurately, I would concede that this expansion of the universe had a beginning.

All universes created through quantum tunneling events as described by inflation theory would have a beginning. If indeed there are others.

You seem hell-bent on trying to tie the expansion of the universe to a unique, singular event, even as the evidence is inconclusive. Why is that?

You can't know what something is by how it starts. You can only know what it is by how it turns out. But that doesn't mean you don't need to know all the steps.

I could say the same thing about you. You seem hell bent on dismissing the evidence that tells us the universe had a beginning.

1. red shift
2. background radiation
3. Freidman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
4. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

There really is no other way. It is not possible for our universe to be eternal.

This universe is not eternal. It had a beginning but what about the universe that was existing before our universe? Our universe may just be one bubble in a multiverse of universes. If you were god you could travel between the dark matter and see the other multiverses but you aren’t.

It’s funny a god can be eternal but you dont think anything existed 17 billion years before the Big Bang.

Your primitive human brain can’t comprehend all the possibilities but Neal Debra’s Tyson can

For us, no other reality exists outside of our universe. As far as we are concerned, nothing did exist before space and time were created. Time has no measure outside of our universe.

I think you are the one who can't comprehend all the possibilities.

God doesn’t exist outside our universe?

 

[ding]

As far as we are concerned, nothing did exist before space and time were created. Time has no measure outside of our universe

And as far as we are concerned, nothing exists over the cosmological horizon. But there is no reason to believe that nothing is there, and every reason to believe there is plenty there.

What are those reasons?

 

[ding]

The atoms that made me aren’t the atoms in other multiverses. Whatever started life on earth only exists in this universe

Correct. And they were made when space and time were created.

Happy 14 1/2 billion years old birthday.