I gotta see their math..
Its exact form is not important to our argument however, except that it is non-zero and spread out over the range of the observable universe. This follows from the requirement of causality; even if matter exists beyond the horizon, it will have no effect on what is inside the horizon, including the wavefunction.
Substituting L0=1.4×1026 m, one obtains m≈10−68 kg or 10−32 eV, quite consistent with the estimated bounds on graviton masses from various experiments [25], and also from theoretical considerations [26], [27], [28] and [29]. In other words, we interpret the quantum condensate as made up of these gravitons, and described by a macroscopic wavefunction.
So, what will Cosmology Science of the future look like without a BB? Standby.....it'll be a fun ride.
which is two key points atheists don't get; the "Who made God" question is actually answered by these equations
This also appears to be a mathematical proof that it's possible for things to exist outside the universe, and that it's possible for infinite reality to exist, which is two key points atheists don't get; the "Who made God" question is actually answered by these equations, in that an infinite Being can in fact exist without cause.
In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity.
This also appears to be a mathematical proof that it's possible for things to exist outside the universe, and that it's possible for infinite reality to exist, which is two key points atheists don't get; the "Who made God" question is actually answered by these equations, in that an infinite Being can in fact exist without cause.
Not talking God, just consciousnessConsciousness is the favored substitute du jour for the soul. It is as fantastical as is god.
1. The drawing is probably incorrect. In all likelihood, the explosion and expansion would be isotropic and thus should be represented by an expanding sphere.
TheGhostOfOtto: when you say consciousness is a myth are you saying you are not conscious??2 entirely different things as you know. Or maybe you dont. And if you think they arent then you dont know what you are talking about.
1. The drawing is probably incorrect. In all likelihood, the explosion and expansion would be isotropic and thus should be represented by an expanding sphere.
In all likelihood, you are right. However, this picture allows one to label epochs and not have other quadrants of the sphere confusing the visualization and type.
It's simplified. Big Bang for dummies...
If the universe has no beginning, and the time it has existed is infinite, then, Shouldn't we already have reach a state of thermal equilibrium (second law of thermodynamics)? And therefore a state of entropy = 0? Or am I wrong? :v
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?
This is science fiction and not science. More evidence points to the Big Bang Theory than away from it. This includes the Biblical account of Creation which all these atheist wackos are really trying to undermine with all their malarkey about dark energy, dark matter, gravitons, the Higgs Boson and all the other modern day physics non-sense.
Hey, hey, hey there.......the Biblical account of Creation is the Big Bang.....!!!!!! Have you never sat down with a checklist to compare the "stretching" & "inflation" of the two hypotheses of the beginning stages of the universe? In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation.
@Returnering-Skippy....Usually you just make up something that sounds like a person with a mental condition playing at being the scientist.This Ira-bot idiot hasn't yet realized that in his own case that same sentence could be truncated to read...
Usually you just make up something that sounds like a person with a mental condition...and it would explain perfectly his Ira-BOT-voting, trolling and village-idiotic driveling. Poor insensible sod hasn't yet realized that all his "smart peoples" (whom idiot-Ira-bot has been trolling-bot-voting and skewing, and people/discussion sabotaging, on behalf of) have now been proven WRONG and me RIGHT. So where does that leave this Ira Moron? Yep, you guessed it, folks...just as wrong as his "smart peoples"; and just as dumb as when "it" first started bot-voting, trolling and driveling here and elsewhere. Poor useless Internet Moron Uncle-bot.
Hey, hey there...the Biblical account of Creation is the Big Bang.....!!!!!! Have you never sat down with a checklist to compare the "stretching" & "inflation" of the two hypotheses of the beginning stages of the universe? In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation.
So if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory?.......yeah, just my point, they're the same.
But the truth is, the evidence against Big Bang existed from its very beginning - even his co-author Edwin Hubble was aware of it.
IF "with big IF" this theory happens to be true with no beginning and end of universe. Does that also mean time is illusion/unreal?
God created things in such a way that only those who truly seek him WILL find him, so we can believe whatever we want to believe - it's called free will. But a being that lives outside of our reality, who creates our reality, seems more feasible to me than matter creating itself from nothing. There has to be some intelligence there to "think" it into existence. Matter has no intellect - it simply is. When something IS created, it's done in a lab, by intelligent beings - US. And even then, it's only a rearranging of atoms that already existed in another form. But since the existence of a being outside of space/time can be neither proven nor disproved, perhaps a better argument for atheists would be to simply say, "I don't WANT to believe."
BTW, the world isn't flat and the earth revolves around the sun too. Wake up.
Just means it's always been there, tickin' away...- WG
And as far as the "something from nothing" dogmatics -
why not "nothing from something"?
And as far as the "something from nothing" dogmatics -
why not "nothing from something"?
The "...from nothing" never really worked for me. While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not.
"Nothing" is not vacuum, but complete absence of everything - including dimensionality/spacetime.
IF "with big IF" this theory happens to be true with no beginning and end of universe. Does that also mean time is illusion/unreal?
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?
And please mop up any vacuum leaks you find on the laboratory floor.
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?
How old is the universe? Age is an expression of time. The universe expands. Is time a result of such expansion, or an intrinsic part of what being a being in the universe entails? First define the idea of the word "time" beyond a mere measurement of duration.
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?
If it goes through 'bang-crunch'-cycles then during the crunch stuff gets compressed into quark gluon plasma (or even further down if there is a 'further down')...and during the 'bang' that crystallizes back into subatomic particles which reform into atoms.
And as far as the "something from nothing" dogmatics -
why not "nothing from something"?
The "...from nothing" never really worked for me. While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not.
"Nothing" is not vacuum, but complete absence of everything - including dimensionality/spacetime.
In other words, you can't fill a room with nothing. And please mop up any vacuum leaks you find on the laboratory floor. ;)
It is truly miraculous how God used only a finite amount of time to create a past infinite universe.
i.e. We have to get rid of the big bang because it implies physics is not god. (Same with the anthropic principle. So, multiverses.)
This theory seems to disregard strong evidence that supports the Big Bang including but not limited to:
-The Cosmic Microwave Background,if there was no big bang, what caused this almost uniform signature across the whole of what we consider to be our cosmic horizon?
-The ever-increasing expansion of the universe: Any of our observations and measurement in redshift appears to completely contradict this model of a spatially finite and eternal universe.
It is truly miraculous how God used only a finite amount of time to create a past infinite universe.
Of all the thousands of gods worshiped over the centuries by many different cultures across the globe, which god exactly is it you are referring to?
The one he feels a connection to of course. And he's allowed to believe it as much as a person is allowed to believe that 75% of the matter in the universe is completely undetectable other than an effect it is claimed to be having, or that all of the matter in the universe was once "a point".
Better take a look at what YOU think is possible before judging what someone else does.
Instead we can look at how fast life was established on Earth, which means it is easy and/or often repeated attempts, and hence life should be common.
Unless you explain why God would be the only thing that can exist without a cause, everything can exist without God.
And Benni; redshift thought to be from galaxies moving away is from photons aging. All of physics is 10 time simpler that way. And the math is identical, you can not tell the differences in the math.
The "...from nothing" never really worked for me. While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not.Well said! You have succinctly put your finger right on the causal non sequitur between 'nothing' and 'something' in physical arguments re 'beginnings'. Cheers!
"Nothing" is not vacuum, but complete absence of everything - including dimensionality/spacetime. So in effect if "nothing" existed it would have no time and no duration - it would be over in (less than) an instant. The "existence of nothing" is a contradition in terms - and by extension "existence" is a tautology.
(Nothing is like "zero" - it's an abstract. Whereas "something" is not an abstract. So linking these two causally makes very little sense to me)
In effect this means that there is no alternative state to "something" existing (what the "something" manifests as is an entirely different problem)
Anybody remember Calabi Yau Manifold?There is no 'outside' in eternal infinite all-inclusive 'universal set' of phenomena/state 'potential' which is 'processing' and 'cycling' ceaselessly though all local/collective epochs and states of possible realizations/manifestations of physically effective features and dynamics. So that Calabi-Yau and other 'representations of 'universal shapes/curvatures/topologies' etc are actually misleading because they are 'finite' possible 'subsets' of dynamical processes within any particular local volume/epoch. Cheers.
Here's a video-
https://www.youtu...Re7529Go
Now, take that and imagine it with even just a thousand more variable strings. What do you get?
An approximation of how our Universe might look from the outside...;-)
500 years from now, students will be saying - "man, those people back then thought our Universe was the center of things?!?"
And dogs will still be chasin' their own tails...
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?Because there is constant recycling via energy/plasma jets of 'deconstructed matter' from the dynamical evolutions and processes at every scale. On large scales like neutron stars, black holes/quasars etc etc. So Hydrogen is being regenerated in polar jets of deconstructed heavier atoms produced in novas/supernovas etc.
-The Cosmic Microwave Background (if there was no big bang, what caused this almost uniform signature across the whole of what we consider to be our cosmic horizon?)Consider an infinite volume with eternal processes going on within it and all around any chosen 'observable volume' such as 'ours'. Over the epochs of radiation from every direction incoming/outgoing to/from 'our' volume would have 'averaged out' base 'flux' of all sorts of radiation contributing to what we 'see' in any chosen part of the radiation spectrum. The combined effects of local (in our volume) and far sourced radiation would give the observed spectrum irrespective of BBang etc 'beginnings/finite' universal volume/process hypoheses.
A theory that poses more questions than answers is not a theory.Apt description of BBang etc. hypotheses! Hence mainstream unease with what's been claimed for BBang etc to date; especially inflation/expansion 'interpretations' of CMB data. Cheers.
A much more basic set of questions involves the continued existence of hydrogen. In an infinite universe, hydrogen would have been gone a long time ago. My old friend John Dobson (rest in peace) was a big critic of the big bang, but I could never get an explanation out of him about the regenerative nature of the matter that we see everywhere.hat's because everyone was missing the obvious re energy-matter 'recycling processes' of pair production/annihilation (quantum scale) and polar jets deconstruction/reconstruction (macro scales). Please see my above posts addressed @ppnlppnl and @Traltizer for more info. Cheers.
I I believe that all things within our universe are in a oval shell which keeps all things we know within it.You & Enstein seem to have a similar conclusion, copied below is a statement directly from his General Relativity:
orti: ...one is 100B to 200B galaxies out there, and each contains billions and even trillions of stars. All of the recent planet findings have been in our galaxy alone, only looking at ~150,000 stars of the ~300,000,000,000 in the milky way.
The hydrogen atom is smaller than it was at the time of creation.
The likelihood of nothing (an empty set) is zero.
All physicists and mathematicians will recognize this in any of the forms (norms) written.
That provides you a setting(s) for an event and an event.
The primitive notion here is an empty set.
@Whydening Gyre:Anybody remember Calabi Yau Manifold?So that Calabi-Yau and other 'representations of 'universal shapes/curvatures/topologies' etc are actually misleading because they are 'finite' possible 'subsets' of dynamical processes within any particular local volume/epoch. Cheers.
Here's a video-
https://www.youtu...Re7529Go
Now, take that and imagine it with even just a thousand more variable strings. What do you get?
An approximation of how our Universe might look from the outside...;-)
500 years from now, students will be saying - "man, those people back then thought our Universe was the center of things?!?"
And dogs will still be chasin' their own tails...
We hypothesize these singularities by projecting mathematical equations until they break. The big problem with this technique is that at the event horizon, everything changes and for that reason alone the equations no longer apply.
We have no idea what happens at that point, only a mathematical hypothesis. It has never been tested, and other than the curvature of space outside the event horizon has never been and can not be measured.
I have been waiting for equations to explain it without the hypothetical singularity concept. No length, width, depth, time does not exist.
Let the arguments begin. I sincerely hope more people look beyond singularities, dark matter, dark energy - It is a good thing to challenge the status qua
What would be the difference between a causal multiverse (the type we've all read about in QM) and this "Presumed Infinite Time Frame, (all caps)" where EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY HAPPENED?
Now, suppose the connectedness is not linear as we imagine in QM with an undetermined future, but distributed in an entanglement that is orderly (chaos, functions, higher math not discovered yet, etc) but not static; and it's the connections that are changing, ie. the correspondences between all possible events (outcomes). etc. and free will.
I'm just watching this post as an interested observer. The intricacies of the science I don't understand, the need to be 'heard' I do.
An interesting debate.
The claim seems to be that heavy elements are broken back down into quarks, ejected back into space, which then reform into basic atoms of hydrogen (amongst other things, I'm sure.) Have you guys got any scientific research to back any of that up?
Along with the problem of figuring out how stars have infinite fuel
Because if at any point the Universe was only .05 seconds old and .05 inches long, there was a time it was .005 seconds old and .005 inches long. It went on forever - and therefore, has always existed.
Human's will believe almost anything to not believe that we are being simulated...
The claim seems to be that heavy elements are broken back down into quarks, ejected back into space, which then reform into basic atoms of hydrogen (amongst other things, I'm sure.) Have you guys got any scientific research to back any of that up?
No....Oh, unless you mean the thousands of terrabytes of data from all collider experiments, ever? Then yes.
Along with the problem of figuring out how stars have infinite fuel
Inifinite fuel? Never read anyone who make that claim.
Colliders are one thing. Showing it happens naturally in the universe at the same rate that all stars are burning hydrogen is another.
If the universe is infinitely old, and stars have been around forever (see previous posts) then there must be infinite fuel for those stars
Back in 1999, when I was 19, I started asking myself what is the smallest size that can't be cut in half, or the shortest amount of time that can't be divided.
If the universe is infinitely old, and stars have been around forever (see previous posts) then there must be infinite fuel for those stars
Erm...no? E.g. if you go though a periodic bang/crunch cycle that simply means your periodically reforming all the stuff there is (into quark gluon plasma and when it expands it'll gel back into nucleons).
or, something must be creating it at an equal or greater rate than it is being used.
or, something must be creating it at an equal or greater rate than it is being used.
.........is this your opinion?
or, something must be creating it at an equal or greater rate than it is being used..........is this your opinion?
No. It is what must be true for the universe to have always been here.
That was nonsense. What happed 1 hours before that 5.4 x 10-44 sec?
........so it is your opinion.
Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written is to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.Nothing in the current cosmological model makes it a special phenomenon that could not be happening elsewhere and all the time; do not forget that 13.82 billion lys is but a dot if the universe is infinite. But why should we care about what is beyond our scope? Even a purely Newtonian universe would not be static.
........so it is your opinion.
If you want to assume there was an infinite amount of hydrogen in an infinite universe, then there should be an infinite amount of heavy elements at this point. In order to fit current observations of the universe, however, that isn't the case. Those that want to stick to the infinitely old universe will need to come up with a way elements are recycled back into hydrogen, and at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up.
You can not tell the quantity of water in the ocean by studying a drip of water. You can not tell what happened by observing a piece of leave burring if you can not see a tree or the forest (you wonder where the leave came from). The universe is INFINITE so it has infinite ways of recycle materials which we may not be able to see.
Those that want to stick to the infinitely old universe will need to come up with a way elements are recycled back into hydrogen, and at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up.
......ever seen a Feynman Diagram for electron pair production? A component of It is energy (gamma frequency) that is transformed into mass.
If you can pass the following simple math test (undergraduate level) to show that you have sufficient education, I do not want to talk about GOD or anything like that.
......ever seen a Feynman Diagram for electron pair production? A component of It is energy (gamma frequency) that is transformed into mass.
It's the " at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up" part that doesn't fit with the observable universe.
@Benni:
Einstein extended the boundary so we can see the limitations of Newton's theory.
....but we have no way of knowing there is not a replenishment rate. Is there a method either via calculation or observation that you can point to? My point being that we don't know what the transformation rate(s) are at other photon frequencies or what other methods in addition to electron pair production transformations are likely to occur.
The nature of the announcement is hardly surprising to those of my era (c. 1962). They came to their conclusion as high schoolers based not on complicated theories of math, but on the simple premise that something cannot come from nothing. At its core, that's always been the problem with "THE Big Bang" theory.
The nature of the announcement is hardly surprising to those of my era (c. 1962). They came to their conclusion as high schoolers based not on complicated theories of math, but on the simple premise that something cannot come from nothing. At its core, that's always been the problem with "THE Big Bang" theory. What about MANY Big Bangs, etc? We await to see if mathematics in general is suited to solving/proving this class of problem.
OK I can see that the model terms, thought of as a constant term etc. keep the universe finite and not shrinking to zero (going backwards of course) but that does not 'give it an infinite age'. The 'therefore' is just shoved in as though it is obvious. I suspect that the writer perhaps does not quite 'get' what is being suggested. If the size shrinks, the time shrinks as well perhaps, but does the time shrink to a standstill? I don't see why not. If so, the universe has existed for ever, in the sense that it has existed for all the time that has ever passed.
..but we have no way of knowing there is not a replenishment rate. Is there a method either via calculation or observation that you can point to? My point being that we don't know what the transformation rate(s) are at other photon frequencies or what other methods in addition to electron pair production transformations are likely to occur.
Show me where in the known universe there is a hydrogen factory that produces even the amount of hydrogen being burned by a single star on at least a 1:1 basis, or show me a paper describing a theoretical object that does this. If it's not at least 1:1 hydrogen production vs consumption in the universe, BTW, then, in the infinite time prior to this, all hydrogen would have been depleted.
......and you've just put your finger on the mystery of Einsteins' Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle, it is incalculable to know the "rate" & but transformation is observable, but what's to say the transformation must be to hydrogen?
In truth, it's semantics, which contributes to great confusion. The literature is replete with discussion of The Big Bang as being "the beginning of time." That strongly implies there was nothing before that.
But the CONCEPT of one is priceless... - WG
@ngeorgalis This includes the Biblical account of Creation which all these atheist wackos are really trying to undermine with all their malarkey about dark energy, dark matter, gravitons, the Higgs Boson and all the other modern day physics non-sense.Children are also born atheists. So you're disparaging every person ever born that you didn't successfully brainwash
Children are also born atheists. So you're disparaging every person ever born that you didn't successfully brainwash
...and you've just put your finger on the mystery of Einsteins' Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle, it is incalculable to know the "rate" & but transformation is observable, but what's to say the transformation must be to hydrogen?
Because we are discussing stars in a universe that is infinitely old. The structures that I have pointed out that must exist, don't
Scattered throughout the universe exist high metallicity (higher even than He) stars mixed with low metallicity stars, this implies age, or it suggests transformation of mass/energy is occurring in a manner we still cannot observe in our colliders to explain this.
So children aren't brainwashed until you brainwash them and teach them to stop asking questions about the world because all the answers are in your fairy tale book. Thanks, Captain ObviousChildren are also born atheists. So you're disparaging every person ever born that you didn't successfully brainwash@ConfoundedSociety Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.
So children aren't brainwashed until you brainwash them and teach them to stop asking questions about the world because all the answers are in your fairy tale book. Thanks, Captain Obvious
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Antialias_physorg 1:1
"In the beginning there was no god. And not even thereafter."
And now you can ponder why your version should be more likely than mine. (Hint: you're not gonna find a logical answer to that one)
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Antialias_physorg 1:1
"In the beginning there was no god. And not even thereafter."
And now you can ponder why your version should be more likely than mine. (Hint: you're not gonna find a logical answer to that one)
In my limited understanding of the physics described in this article there was no beginning. I admit that trying to truly conceptualize infinity outside of a mathematical construct is beyond my capability. So too is my ability to conceptualize a starting point to our universe without attempting to put it in a broader context that it was created by some force outside the boundaries of that universe. Mathematics and theoretical physics can provide plausible theories for both limited by our reference data. I just don't know how limited our data really is.
So why did your gawd make children as atheists? It seems your gawd has an inferiority complexSo children aren't brainwashed until you brainwash them and teach them to stop asking questions about the world because all the answers are in your fairy tale book. Thanks, Captain Obvious@ConfoundedSociety Atheism is as devout a religion as exists. The brainwashing accusation could just as easily be applied to you.
In the beginning there was nothing.There is always structure at the core of QM, so even the vacuum makes ephemeral particles
@ConfoundedSociety Atheism is as devout a religion as exists. The brainwashing accusation could just as easily be applied to you.
So why did your gawd make children as atheists? It seems your gawd has an inferiority complex
@ConfoundedSociety You obviously failed to check the previous posts. First, last time I checked, I don't own any "gawd." Second, I've already explained that children aren't atheistsAn atheist is a nonbeliever. You need to learn your native language, not make up your own or talk in tongues. Of course you don't own gawd he owns your a**, which is why you call him and the entity that owns your home LORD
An atheist is a nonbeliever. You need to learn your native language, not make up your own or talk in tongues. Of course you don't own gawd he owns your a**, which is why you call him and the entity that owns your home LORD
@ConfoundedSociety No. An Atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Until someone understands the concept of god, they can neither be believer nor nonbeliever. And you are making a whole lot of assumptions about what I believe.No, you are an pathological bullshitter who makes up words on the fly, twisting semantics like taffee and lacks any regard for the English dictionary
No, you are an pathological bullshitter who makes up words on the fly, twisting semantics like taffee and lacks any regard for the English dictionary
You just concurred with my posts without realizingNo, you are an pathological bullshitter who makes up words on the fly, twisting semantics like taffee and lacks any regard for the English dictionary@ConfoundedSociety atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:
You cannot lack belief in something you have no concept of.Actually the exact opposite is true!
Does a child lack belief in Europe?Europe is a fact, not a belief
Does a child lack belief in Europe?
Europe is a fact, not a belief
No, he lacks a knowledge of neutrinos. You confuse education with indoctrinationDoes a child lack belief in Europe?Europe is a fact, not a belief@ConfoundedSociety Does a child lack belief in neutrinos?
Does a child lack belief other dimensions?No he lacks a maths education
The term has no meaning what-so-ever until you know what those things mean.That is the philosophy of quantum solipsism. Not yet universally agreed upon and I doubt you would agree either if you knew what your words implied
The truly ironic part is that you are essentially claiming god made you an Atheist.No, YOU made the claim by IMPLICATION. But apparently you don't know basic logic
@ConfoundedSociety Does a child lack belief in neutrinos?
No, he lacks a knowledge of neutrinos. You confuse education with indoctrination
Does a child lack belief other dimensions?
No he lacks a maths education
The truly ironic part is that you are essentially claiming god made you an Atheist.
No, YOU made the claim by IMPLICATION. But apparently you don't know basic logic
Atheism is as devout a religion as exists@ConfoundedSociety
The ironic part is, neither are youthe point is not that there is no logical explanation, but that you are assuming superiority over much older texts which have a lot longer historical and otherwise standing
The ironic part isbut the most important part of all is simplythis part: xtian religion is based upon a faith, which, by definition is a belief in something without proof
So, the only way to prove the existence of god would be to start from an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that god exists, and then do a series of experiments that prove it to be wrong.
@ConfoundedSociety contin'd
The ironic part is, neither are you
the point is not that there is no logical explanation, but that you are assuming superiority over much older texts which have a lot longer historical and otherwise standing
Logically speaking, if you are going to accept any deity, it should be the oldest/most established, therefore the x-tian god will fall under the American 1st nation god(s) as well as most Asiatic beliefs
This is about SCIENCE, and thus provable stuff
and by provable, i choose the definition as such: having evidence to support the facts, or being able to repeatedly demonstrate using the scientific method that a certain set of statements are true or correct
IOW - SCIENCE
that is the point
So you openly admit that, all things being equal, god is as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence.
"God did it" is simply invoking a magical explanation. It is what theists always do when they see the edge of our current understanding.
Every thing which has previously been attributed to a "universal magic entity" has eventually been understood by science.
You are trying to argue against religion instead of against the existence of god@Confounded
...as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidenceit is actually stated much more clearly above by DarkLordKelvin
that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god ... there is similarly no scientific evidence that god does not exist. The scientific method requires experimentally falsifiable hypotheses ... as far as I know, nobody has proposed an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that can address this question (one way or the other) in sufficiently robust terms to be convincing to an open-minded, rational person
Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.
Please give us the scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of the universe. How about the start of life on this planet? How about Fatima, or any of the host of other "miracles" that science has failed to explain?@confounded
no, i am clarifying a few things as well as telling you that religion is a made up artifice of man as well as a means of controlling others, you are confusing religion with a faith[/p]
Nobody cares. Because religion has nothing to do with whether or not god exists.
[p]I posit that unless you can prove that your deity exists, then your point is irrelevant as it is not considered science
Please give us the scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of the universe. How about the start of life on this planet? How about Fatima, or any of the host of other "miracles" that science has failed to explain?
@confounded
i am not speaking for Mando, but i will reply to your post with a simple video that may help you comprehend what Mando as well as some others are talking about regarding religion and science, and the fact that just because we don't know it now doesn't mean we will never know it
Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.
No, that is not "true" from a scientific standpoint .. you cannot convince someone of those things based on any sort of objective evidence that can be experimentally tested (using scientific methodology) in the present day.
@ConfoundedSociety And yet, you claim that a child who has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are contradicting yourself.So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are an idiot
No. Your words, not mine - "So why did your gawd make children as atheists?"Fine, so why did your dragon make children as atheists? Now I believe in the existence of dragons. Or at least now I believe in your christ psychosis
So you openly admit that, all things being equal, god is as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence.Actually dragons are as rational an explanation as any, all things being equal
And now you can ponder why your version should be more likely than mine. (Hint: you're not gonna find a logical answer to that one)
The ironic part is, neither are you.
Children are also born atheists. So you're disparaging every person ever born that you didn't successfully brainwash
Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.
In my view, atheism and theism are on the same level of irrationality.... both aim to speak of metaphysics, which is not amendable to science
Religions are designed to control people and cause friction and judgement for arbitrary reasons selected by a controlling group within the organization much like political parties, but with usually more dire consequences, be it immediate or the control through fear
The problem is E=MC^2 is not necessarily valid!
My rhetorical question is whether there is anyone posting here who has sufficient understanding of theoretical physics and the underlying math to actually explain this? As an engineer my knowledge of physics pretty much begins and ends with Newtonian mechanics. The science and math of the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, string theory... are esoteric to the point that most people, myself included, accept the current science as a reasonable hypothesis by those who are the leading experts in the field. .
The ground state is atheism. It is not sensible to assume a theory where there is no evidence that one is needed, therefore atheism does not have to battle on an equal footing with theism. Theism makes claims and therefore must defend those claims. Atheism makes no prior claim - [...]the onus of proof/evidence is entirely on theism.
Why don't you guys take this idiotic conversation elsewhere. No wonder the world is so F*cked up!
he would not qualify because he has not considered the question at all
Why is it that Atheists can't stop talking about a subject they claim to not believe in?
So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are an idiot
Fine, so why did your dragon make children as atheists? Now I believe in the existence of dragons. Or at least now I believe in your christ psychosis
So you openly admit that, all things being equal, god is as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence.
Actually dragons are as rational an explanation as any, all things being equal
The ground state is atheism. It is not sensible to assume a theory where there is no evidence that one is needed, therefore atheism does not have to battle on an equal footing with theism. Theism makes claims and therefore must defend those claims. Atheism makes no prior claim - therfore until/unless a signed confession by a god as to "I did it" turns up the onus of proof/evidence is entirely on theism.
People are trying to find the origin of the universe. But the matter of fact is : there is no origin. The universe has always been there and will always be there.
Why is it that Atheists can't stop talking about a subject they claim to not believe in?
Because it vexes us that grown people believe in fairy tales? And are willing to murder for it? (If they would just kill themselves no one would say anything, though. Be assured of that. Everyone wins. We get to live in a world without delusional people and they get to go to heaven.)
An agnostic would put it in the unknowable camp where the various theories are independent and equally supportable and where choosing one over the other is equally valid
This is not the case, as theism requires support whereas atheism does not.
Who are these science deniers?About which of the above posters do you refer to?
BB is settled science.When did that happen? The author of this paper doesn't think so.
There's a consensus!Among whom?
I really only came back here to see how bad this article's comment section was getting.
Captain S. - Got any idea how these people ended up on a science site? This is so far off the yellow brick road and make-believe land. I don't think I've ever seen this before.
You did not require sentience. Like every christ psychotic, when proven fallacious you change the definitions. Again your claim that living things all believe in your gawd is wrong and stupidSo you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are an idiot@Counfounded A worm is a non-sentient being. Please explain why you think they can "believe" anything.
Here you again change the subject. You claimed that by denoting your imaginary friend, I conjectured it into existence. Now you flip-flop to the insane claim that chimps and infants worship your gawd even without your brainwashing. Your quote:Fine, so why did your dragon make children as atheists? Now I believe in the existence of dragons. Or at least now I believe in your christ psychosis@Counfounded It doesn't matter what entity you ascribe my ownership of… the fault in your statement is that children are Atheists.
@Counfounded Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.Why don't they worship Bal, or Amun Ra like you do? In fact you worship AMEN Ra at the end of every prayer because your brainwashing is so complete you don't question the correct deity to bribe, which in any case is a pagan ritual
Why? You presupposed the condition "all things being equal." That means you will freely accept ANY explanation. Again you are backpeddling. My explanations are not acceptable to you because I'm not part of your inner brainwashed circle. After all you can do or change anything you want anytime like your gawd, correct? All things are not equally plausible, such as your invisible imaginary skyfairy running shit, or a poster suffering from delusions actually being correct because he shares his delusion with a group of mentally illActually dragons are as rational an explanation as any, all things being equal
You'd have to give a generic definition of dragon to back that up. Since dragons are generally accepted to be organic, living creatures, your relief that they are a rational explanation of how the universe was created says a great deal about your logic skills.
You did not require sentience. Like every christ psychotic, when proven fallacious you change the definitions. Again your claim that living things all believe in your gawd is wrong and stupid
Here you again change the subject. You claimed that by denoting your imaginary friend, I conjectured it into existence. Now you flip-flop to the insane claim that chimps and infants worship your gawd even without your brainwashing. Your quote:
@Counfounded Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.
Why don't they worship Bal, or Amun Ra like you do? In fact you worship AMEN Ra at the end of every prayer because your brainwashing is so complete you don't question the correct deity to bribe, which in any case is a pagan ritual
Wrong. A library has knowledge but it is as sentient as your gawd. A rock is ignorant but then again so are you. You made the hilariously stupid claim that children and chimps are born deluded believing in your particular imaginary skyfairy. Even your gawd demands "You shall worship no other gods before me" which proves that even your gawd acknowledges other gods are wandering about in your imaginary world. Again in what neurons is this preprogramming reside exactly? Have you done experiments proving belief for your particular gawd encoded in chimp DNA?You did not require sentience. Like every christ psychotic, when proven fallacious you change the definitions. Again your claim that living things all believe in your gawd is wrong and stupid@Confonded Yes, I did. Terms like belief, ignorance and knowledge dictate that we are only talking about sentient thought.
Why? You presupposed the condition "all things being equal." That means you will freely accept ANY explanation.
The only thing you proved wrong is your grammarWhy? You presupposed the condition "all things being equal." That means you will freely accept ANY explanation.@Confounded Wrong again. Any explanation that can't be disproved for events that don't have a provable alternate explanation, yes. I've already explained why your belief that dragons created the universe doesn't hold up based on current scientific knowledge.
I'm not the one changing the subject. The subject is that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers. That's just basic logic.If chimps and children do not believe in your gawd, then they are nonbelievers. So you claim they are born believing in your particular gawd and not Baha'i, Candomblé, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Rastafari, Santeria, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Unitarianism or Zoroastrianism
@Confonded Yes, I did. Terms like belief, ignorance and knowledge dictate that we are only talking about sentient thought.
Wrong. A library has knowledge but it is as sentient as your gawd
Wrong. Black holes have information. Libraries have knowledge with codes of effective behavior and understanding. Granted they also have fiction, as for example your gawd. Computers have knowledge, yet they don't believe in your gawd. So yet again you are just making up garbage on a science site because your brain is stuck in the bronze age@Confonded Yes, I did. Terms like belief, ignorance and knowledge dictate that we are only talking about sentient thought.Wrong. A library has knowledge but it is as sentient as your gawd@Confounded Wrong again. Libraries have information.
knowledge
Top 1000 frequently used words
Syllabification: knowl·edge
Pronunciation: /ˈnälÉÄ�ď��ď��j
/
Definition of knowledge in English:
noun
1Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
A rock is ignorant but then again so are you. You made the hilariously stupid claim that children and chimps are born deluded believing in your particular imaginary skyfairy. Even your gawd demands "You shall worship no other gods before me" which proves that even your gawd acknowledges other gods are wandering about in your imaginary world. Again in what neurons is this preprogramming reside exactly? Have you done experiments proving belief for your particular gawd encoded in chimp DNA?
If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, why is there still hydrogen for the stars to burn@Losik In AWT it's recycled: the photons and neutrinos and scalar waves of dark matter, into which the galaxies evaporate are condensing at the free space between them and occasionally form a new galaxies there. From the perspective of dense aether model the galaxies are just a giant density fluctuations of vacuum which do evaporate and condense - well, like any other density fluctuations. They're just pretty large and as such structured. AWT provides the explanation of mechanism, which prohibits the condensation of matter evaporated into radiation in close vicinity of existing galaxies - in this way the matter remains spread rather evenly across the visible universe.
@Confounded And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact.That's a profoundly stupid statement. Either they are believing or they are not believing, unless you claim they are quantum wavefunctions. Brains are like software. They can have many patterns but they always have some pattern. You claim is as stupid as saying a box cannot be empty because it is not yet filled with nothing
@Confounded And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact.That's a profoundly stupid statement. Either they are believing or they are not believing, unless you claim they are quantum wavefunctions. Brains are like software. They can have many patterns but they always have some pattern. You claim is as stupid as saying a box cannot be empty because it is not yet filled with nothing
@Confounded And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact.That's a profoundly stupid statement. Either they are believing or they are not believing, unless you claim they are quantum wavefunctions. Brains are like software. They can have many patterns but they always have some pattern. You claim is as stupid as saying a box cannot be empty because it is not yet filled with nothing
A neural engram could be randomly patterned to believe in sploink, Amun Ra or even you. The point is that neural nets should be adapted toward effective behavior, whatever their initial configuration. There are an infinite quantity of noises you call belief, and few patterns forged by productive behavior+consistency. These neural configurations embed understanding and knowledge, and resist delusionSo, apparently you claim to not believe in sploink.@Confounded And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact.That's a profoundly stupid statement. Either they are believing or they are not believing, unless you claim they are quantum wavefunctions. Brains are like software. They can have many patterns but they always have some pattern. You claim is as stupid as saying a box cannot be empty because it is not yet filled with nothing
So, Jim.......is Einstein wrong in his General Relativity when he makes the following statement:
It's experientially subjective. There are lots of reasons to call what is found subjectively "God".That is deism which is generally not a problem. The problem is that large swaths of retards believe their imaginary friends are real, and by agency their playmate metastasizes into some omnipotent personal gawd that gives a crap about their daily affairs. This is a state of psychosis which society currently permits, much as bullying, smoking and wife beating were ignored in the past. These brainwashed morons reproduce like bunnies then come on Internet boards with their bronze age bullshiyte. Then need to be periodically pruned wherever they sprout or the science garden becomes overrun and neglected
Who are these science deniers? BB is settled science. There's a consensus!Yes, we have consensus regarding cold fusion, global warming, big bang model or antigravity drives - and the universities full of extremely smart and educated ignorants. Do we have something more? BTW The shaking consensus regarding black holes is AdS/CFT dual counterpart of Big Bang models - once you introduce the quantum mechanics into relativity models, then the predictions will change a lot, because these two theories differ by http://en.wikiped...astrophe in their predictions of cosmological constant and/or density of vacuum. So you cannot be sure with anything, once you introduce the quantum mechanics into Big Bang model in any form.
So, Jim.......is Einstein wrong in his General Relativity when he makes the following statement:
Nenni: I am a doctor of engineeringVery good Jim. I have 6 years of Engineering school education in Electrical & Nuclear Engineering, majored in Electrical. I can design a nuclear reactor system.
Having said that, we all know the limitations of Newton's theory. The same approach applies to Einstein's theoryI didn't know there was an "approach" that applies to Einstein's theory in GR in the same manner as Newton's limitations on gravity.
If anybody tries to find the time zero or edge of universe with his theory, that person is making mistakes. The new discover is telling people that there is no origin or edge of universe.I can follow every Differential Equation in Einstein's GR & I haven't seen anything whereby I could conclude I'm "making mistakes", the reason being that the math looks flawless for the concept of an entropic universe.
@Benni:
By "approach" I meant that we can not use GR outside its useful limitation, when the edge of universe approaches infinite. Just like we could not use Newton's theory to calculate the impact of light with a atom.
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
So if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory?
...yeah, just my point, they're the same.
Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written, to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.
Sorry above I tried to write "So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god has belief" but this three minute editing timeout stopped my progress
Sorry above I tried to write "So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god has belief" but this three minute editing timeout stopped my progress@Confounded No. You claimed that. Without sentient thought, there is no belief or disbelief.
In any case belief only requires action and memory. So calculators and animals have beliefs. Even maths theorems can have beliefs or hunches written in
Is that what they taught you at bye-bull college? And where is my region? Up there in the clouds with your gawd? You must really enjoy just making up stories and fairy tales. Are you in some tiny town that closes at 4pm every day?In any case belief only requires action and memory. So calculators and animals have beliefs. Even maths theorems can have beliefs or hunches written in
I understand that the need to cling to your religion drives you to such irrational statements. In the real world, belief requires a conscious decision by a sentient mind. Your claim that Alexander the Great chose to believe Neptune (the planet) did not exist tells us a great deal about where your thought processes are.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with creation theory. I really doubt your assertion that scientist don't like the Big Bang theory solely because it is too close to creationism
The universe as we observe it makes sense when you derive it from a starting point. It really doesn't if you think it's always been here......so then does this mean you agree with the below quote directly from Einstein's GR?
@Benni:
Ok, I do understand your point. But my point being that Einstein in using the geometric description of "quasi-spherical" in his GR is unambiguously stating that the universe has an edge. Else if it does not have an edge (boundary), entropy can never be established for the continuing distribution of energy in a closed system as we presently observe is occurring, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Any thoughts about that?
Smart people should know that what we know is only limited to the observations we current have. GR fits our CURRENT knowledge very well (just like Newton's fit well 100 years ago). Once our observations advances, we will discover that the limitations of current theory and improve it. All the indications are that there was no origin or boundary of universe (although it has not been proved yet, and will never been 100% proved - in other words, we can never discover all and everything of the universe - it is a infinite process).
@Benni:
Smart people should know that what we know is only limited to the observations we current have. GR fits our CURRENT knowledge very well (just like Newton's fit well 100 years ago). Once our observations advances, we will discover that the limitations of current theory and improve it. All the indications are that there was no origin or boundary of universe (although it has not been proved yet, and will never been 100% proved - in other words, we can never discover all and everything of the universe - it is a infinite process).
Is that what they taught you at bye-bull college?
The Big Bang has nothing to do with creation theory. I really doubt your assertion that scientist don't like the Big Bang theory solely because it is too close to creationism
The two are EXACTLY the same.......do the checklist like I suggested. Just why do you think there are so many cosmologists so hopeful that the James Webb telescope spectrometry will find galaxies on the other side of that vaunted Primordial Cloud? It puts a lot of distance between them & Creationist/Big Bang Cosmology...........uuuhhhh, a little tongue in cheek here, they're praying for it.
@Benni:
..........so do you know what the Primordial Gas Cloud is? What do you the the ramifications for current Cosmology will be if the James Webb telescope discovers galaxies beyond it? I think it will be the spearhead leading the charge to ditch the Big Bang.
@Benni:
....so then does this mean you agree with the below quote directly from Einstein's GR?
The universe as we observe it makes sense when you derive it from a starting point. It really doesn't if you think it's always been here.
But that is not to say there won't be some folks who won't hesitate to bang their heads against it all day long :)
But that is not to say there won't be some folks who won't hesitate to bang their heads against it all day long :)
Got any idea how these people ended up on a science site?@MandoZink
Reads just like a perfect description of the so-called science of climatology@benniTROLL
the king of Copy & Pastejust like a fearful idiot, you dislike being exposed as a fraud: i back up my claims and interpretations of the evideince with actual links to evideince, unlike you, who speculates wildly and then appeals to self-authority "i'm a nuclear engineer, so it must be right"
Posted byand of course, anyone semi-literate can read that it says "IF i wanted"... you even support this with the link!
Poor malignant blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah WEONG blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah. Him "being away" blah blah blah blah.@rc
The edge of the universe is the point where you begin to run into copies of things in your universe, as there are only so may configurations possible with 1*10^81 particles. Copies will be encountered at the horizon.That is already happening here in our observable energy-space volume/processing dynamics/products, at all scales. Any and all possible energy-space perturbations/features which persist long enough to be directly or indirectly 'observed' (or otherwise 'experienced/identified' by an observer via some physical 'observational construct' as distinct products/configurations etc) will happen and be the 'templates' for the full range of persistent occurrences. All 'variations on the themes' copying and cycling/recycling already occurs all around from local to infinity extent. No need for hair-splitting 'multiverse' distinctions, because it's all one infinite eternal universal system processing through all possible stages/epochs of local/infinite contexts.
PS, the only difference between you and RC is that you log in from different places and you have different log-in names
Hey there El Stumpo, care to repeat that threat again about committing identify theft against me followed up by threats to confront me personally at my "doorstep"?@benniMORON
@Posted by that poor poor Stumpy to Benni:TROLL FEST- i will leave you two lovers alone
Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.
@Ren Мathematics is fundamental science, but when is used for speculations, can lead to serious delusions.Really? Most readers here are more than 12yo, Ren
@Ren Мathematics is fundamental science, but when is used for speculations, can lead to serious delusions.
Really? Most readers here are more than 12yo, Ren
that's where the word Atom comes from BTW - doesn't mean it can't be split)
Hey there El Stumpo:hey there back, el_benjiTROLL
that's where the word Atom comes from BTW - doesn't mean it can't be split)
Technically speaking the atom cannot be split in the sense that it keeps it's elemental identity.
"Hey there El Stumpo:
hey there back, el_benjiTROLL
have you figured out how to comment to the admin with the PM's down?
did you ever find that "contact" link at the bottom of every freakin PO page?
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp ....
The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made.
The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.
... these most insightful comments are getting systematically downvoted, because the proponents of mainstream physics fears of premature lost of their jobs.... Today the scientific people systematically ignore the existing understanding instead for to save their necks.
Isn't there also hypocrisy in saying that the universe had to be created, but the creator was always there?
If you have rules about the universe's beginnings, those same rules must be applied to the creator of that universe.
Having an infinite loop of creators being created, is the same as not having a beginning. Existence would still exist, just in a different form. That would be like explaining that a tree came from an acorn, but not saying where the acorn came from. You would not have explained where the tree came from, just how it changed.
Again, I'm missing your point, apparently. If you are comfortable saying the universe has always been here, you must be comfortable with the claim that any creator has always been. And the Big Bang doesn't necessitate a beginning either. That's just as far back as we can see.
The acorn was on the ground when we came across it. Where did it come from? We could make a guess based on what we can observe around it, but we can't know since we didn't witness the event that put it there. We know acorns enough to realize that it didn't used to be there (or the tree would have grown long ago) but can only speculate on it's origin.
Too existential.
It came from the oak tree in your yard. I've been hit on the head by them as I mow mine...
Too existential.
It came from the oak tree in your yard. I've been hit on the head by them as I mow mine...
Not existential at all. Just following the previous metaphor. Please explain what the oak tree is in this metaphor. Sounds like God.
Sounds like a Universe that recreates itself via looping. Why all the "where did the Universe come from?" speculation when it's tuff enuff to take in all that is here, already?
Sounds like a Universe that recreates itself via looping. Why all the "where did the Universe come from?" speculation when it's tuff enuff to take in all that is here, already?
Because that's the whole subject of the article.
The edge of the universe is the point where you begin to run into copies of things in your universe, as there are only so may configurations possible with 1*10^81 particles. Copies will be encountered at the horizon.
who are we, what are we, where did we come from... Where did the Universe come from...
All existentialist crap... that is just an excuse to not get out and get your hands dirty doing the actual work...
Real scientists may not always have it right. But they get up, dust themselves off and get back on that horse until they DO get it right...
That means - quit worrying about the past and focus on the future...
Scientists can't stand leaving something at "we don't know."
The Big Bang necessitates that we will never know what happened prior.
They don't like it.
A metaphor. Consider a plane with your eyes as a plane level point. The point has no dimension and can see nothing. As long as the plane remains flat there is no consciousness. Now your eye rises above the surrounding plane. You become conscious of the plane which now has a bump with you on top. Other waves and bumps influence the plane and now you have a complex universe. Consciousness has created this universe.
The entire field of cosmology and the "Big Bang" proponents should prepare to rethink their "theories".
This one fact will invalidate the "Big Bang Theory" as well as an inflationary universe. I find this comforting as these concepts made no sense whatsoever.
The latest radio telescope data is also validating the electric model of the universe put forth by plasma physicists. Gravity based theories such as black holes, neutron stars and dark matter will be the next to fall.
Maybe then cosmology can return to being an observationally based science with experimental confirmation. It currently resembles a religion with it's foundation being unproven mathematical constructs.
Please read the research paper!
Universe has no beginning or ending, nor does it have edges (infinite size and time). It has and will always be there. old stars will die and new starts will born....perpetually.
This one is absolutely right. It is hard to fine common language here.
This one is absolutely right. It is hard to fine common language here.
99% of everything scientists thought they knew at one point or another has been proven false. What makes you think you'll be right the next time?
The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made.
So?The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.
Ummm… But you think It's OK for the universe to never have been created? You don't even realize the hypocrisy there, do you?
The concept of the universe means everything. It is made up of matter and space. The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made. If the matter is expanding, it is still moving in space, still part of the universe. Is there a theory of how the space and matter was created?
The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.
One of the laws of physics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed... If this is so, the universe and it's contents could not have been created, and can not end.
The concept of the universe means everything. It is made up of matter and space. The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made. If the matter is expanding, it is still moving in space, still part of the universe. Is there a theory of how the space and matter was created?
The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.
One of the laws of physics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed... If this is so, the universe and it's contents could not have been created, and can not end.
Perfect and beautiful statements. We can still see smart people here.
Isn't there also hypocrisy in saying that the universe had to be created, but the creator was always there?
No. It's saying either is possible. And no one is saying that the universe HAD to be created, simply that, based on current observations, that makes the most sense.If you have rules about the universe's beginnings, those same rules must be applied to the creator of that universe.
Why? First, no one disclaiming either must be true, only that they believe it be true. Second, what rules are you referring to? That something can exist without being created or could have been created? How is that a rule?
He was trying to say that universe could not have beginning either because things could not be created (law of physics) or because, if it were created, there was already creator there so there was time before beginning, which means no beginning.
He was trying to say that universe could not have beginning either because things could not be created (law of physics) or because, if it were created, there was already creator there so there was time before beginning, which means no beginning.
Unless - the Universe is the creator, recreating itself...
But the consensus of 97% of scientists...
There are recent radio telescope images from Chandra (and others) that show quasars in physical contact with galaxies as if they are being produced by them. What's interesting is that each body has a very different red shift. This is direct confirmation of the work done by Halton Arp, a student of Edmund Hubble, while he was at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. His book " Seeing Red " made a convincing case that red shift is a function of age, not velocity or distance.
Carl Sagan made the comment that if this work is verified it would invalidate the data used to propose both the big bang and inflation.
Your objective reality, the concept that the universe exists with well-defined properties, independent of what we choose to observe and measure is a foregone conclusion.
Both [God] and [Realism] are undefined properties.
Undefined properties are observer-independent.
That's not my notion of 'objective reality', nor is it one backed by facts established by experiment. - N
Foregone conclusion = A conclusion formed in advance to __________ <------- fill-in
- with literally any meaning human language has to offer..
Independent objective reality "can be said" (!!) to be Objective since independent objective reality "informs" (!!!!) experiment.
Informs? Seriously? What science asserts that?
Returners
Feb 9, 2015I gotta see their math. I was just talking about this sort of model yesterday and the day before. I think this is potentially better relativity both at the cosmic level and the local level because it introduces a mechanism to relate mass to space itself via a mediating particle, which is something relativity doesn't do. I got some critics from Ira and another guy about the Michelson Morley experiment and such. I don't see any reason an "fluid" model can't still work to tie gravity and space together in a single mediating substance or set of substances.
I will read the paper a little now and some later if there is no pay wall.