Origin of the Universe

@Smileyrius,

Smi thanks for all that, I'll have to digest it

0 Replies

@abwishman,

Quote:

Honestly how could the universe exist forever?

Honestly, why not

Quote:

Isn't it more reasonable to have a God who created the universe supernaturally

It's very hard to explain and entails contradiction and paradox

Quote:

then saying the universe has existed forever with no proof behind it?

Not exactly proof but the absence of contradiction is pretty good evidence

0 Replies

@kency123,

Quote:

it started at the big bang.

Ken, some of us think the Big Bang is part of a cycle: Bang, Evolution, Expansion, Contraction, Bang

Quote:

We don't know where

As there's nothing outside it, it happened here

Quote:

or why it happened

Because it hadta

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Their proofs are mathematical equations.
There are no mathematical proofs for the 'Bubble Universe' and others like the 'quantum parallel universes'. They are based purely on speculation and the 'need' to see the universe as eternal.

Quote:
What are your proofs?
I am not foolish enough to present them as 'proofs' but I have shown the mathematical evidence for a God in other threads like the various ones on ID.

If you're saying that the theories aren't based on mathematical equations, then you're wrong, e.g. Inflation and Eternal Inflation, Alan H. Guth (MIT).

They are proofs in that the mathematical models are sound.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

And why do you propose this as a 'single event'?
Infinity - - -

Moreover - Provide evidence of your presumption, please?

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Physicists don't claim to have theoretical proof of what was before or beyond the universe. Today it's impossible to know, just as it was impossible for Newton to know about Einstein's relativity without centuries of more discovery. Newton would be delighted to be corrected by Einstein. Einstein would be delighted to be corrected by future scientists. Science thrives on ignorance. Religion thrives on claiming to know it all. Every time science makes new progress they have to make embarrassing changes to their claims or push their head deeper into the sand.

2 Replies

@abwishman,

In the 'physical' plane - Everything alters state in accordance with current criterea.
This universe began with the interaction of its internal criteria with external criteria (Absorb, expand, discharge).
And, as (In order for matter to change form/state) a result of an explosive interaction (Viewed externally) a carrier wave (expansion) threw matterial (Beyond the event) and the internal material filled the vacated space - The 'implosion' factor (resounding wave) created a 'near-vacuum' in which we now sit - The temporal dilation that a 'near-vacuum' creates virtually freezes the event (when observed from within the event) - Therefore, billions of solar revolutions (Years) appear to have taken place between the event and now - But viewed externally - It would be like you or I watching a hand-grenade going off - Almost instantaneous.

That's how it works.
And that's the way it always has and always shall work.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Odd question to ask, mid thread, but ok.
A pillock (slang): Plonker, dimwit, moron, cretin, etc.

1 Reply

@abwishman,

"NOTHING" doesn't, never did, and CANNOT ever exist.

1 Reply

@kency123,

I doubt it - Einstein was a fraud - Never invented anything, never proved anything, never unified anything in actual reality - Relativity is bollux - Just look it up.
Tesla was right.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

If you're saying that the theories aren't based on mathematical equations, then you're wrong, e.g. Inflation and Eternal Inflation, Alan H. Guth (MIT).

They are proofs in that the mathematical models are sound.

I'm saying that their equations prove nothing, and posting links to speculative theories you don't understand yourself proves nothing. You can find such speculations that 'prove' almost anything.

The following quote from your link properly sums it up:

Quote:

Unfortunately, attempts to quantitatively study this steady state are severely limited by several factors. First, there are ambiguities in deﬁning probabilities, which will be discussed later. In addition, the steady state properties seem to depend strongly on super-Planckian physics which we do not understand.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Quote:

Odd question ... pillock (slang): Plonker, dimwit, moron, cretin, etc

Thanks Mark

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:

If you're saying that the theories aren't based on mathematical equations, then you're wrong, e.g. Inflation and Eternal Inflation, Alan H. Guth (MIT).

They are proofs in that the mathematical models are sound.
I'm saying that their equations prove nothing, and posting links to speculative theories you don't understand yourself proves nothing. You can find such speculations that 'prove' almost anything.

The following quote from your link properly sums it up:

Quote:
Unfortunately, attempts to quantitatively study this steady state are severely limited by several factors. First, there are ambiguities in deﬁning probabilities, which will be discussed later. In addition, the steady state properties seem to depend strongly on super-Planckian physics which we do not understand.

I'm saying that these theories are based on mathematics, and that the mathematics are sound.

1 Reply

@kency123,

kency123 wrote:

Physicists don't claim to have theoretical proof of what was before or beyond the universe. Today it's impossible to know, just as it was impossible for Newton to know about Einstein's relativity without centuries of more discovery. Newton would be delighted to be corrected by Einstein. Einstein would be delighted to be corrected by future scientists. Science thrives on ignorance. Religion thrives on claiming to know it all. Every time science makes new progress they have to make embarrassing changes to their claims or push their head deeper into the sand.

Right, they're theories based on sound mathematics which is the point I making.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

From your Theory with lots of great math that neither of us understands:
"In addition, the steady state properties seem to depend strongly on super-Planckian physics which we do not understand."

I'm saying that these theories are based on mathematics, and that the mathematics are sound.

And if you claim to understand the math, I'm going to ask you how you have 'sound mathematics' about something the mathematicians admit we do not understand.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
From your Theory with lots of great math that neither of us understands:
"In addition, the steady state properties seem to depend strongly on super-Planckian physics which we do not understand."

I'm saying that these theories are based on mathematics, and that the mathematics are sound.
And if you claim to understand the math, I'm going to ask you how you have 'sound mathematics' about something the mathematicians admit we do not understand.

I don't claim to know the math. Theoretical physics are based on mathematics. The mathematics are based on axioms.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I don't claim to know the math. Theoretical physics are based on mathematics. The mathematics are based on axioms.

Valid axioms are only possible about things we thoroughly understand. Not on things we don't. No valid axioms, no valid math.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I think there's a third possibility, one we don't yet understand

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I think there's a third possibility, one we don't yet understand

I can buy that!...

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Thank you, Foot

0 Replies

Origin of the Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know