| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2009 04:29:50 PM · #601 |
| Did he say the big bang singularity could be eternal? I didn't find that. I remember him suggesting that perhaps there were other similar events before it but that of course it is impossible to know. Personally, I have no problem with a universe that "just is" and has no beginning or end, in the sense that the surface of a sphere has neither. If the best way to describe that is "eternal", well, okay, but I would strip the word of all its dewey-eyed sentimentality, as it is too connotative for my liking. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 05:00:56 PM · #602 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The whole conversation came up with Shannon asserting that we had no reason not to assume the universe was eternal. I pointed out evidence shows a beginning to it. He countered that the evidence points to a Big Bang, but the singularity itself could have been eternal. |
You might want to review before making up new histories like that. The conversation started with your [general "your"] assertion that the universe must have been created, yet it's possible for the creator to have always existed. If it's possible for a creator to be eternal, then why not the universe itself (and vice versa)?
I countered that the UNIVERSE could be eternal— perhaps changing forms in a continual cycle between energy and matter. You seem to be taking the Big Bang itself as the "start" of the universe when it may only be the current form. The "something" that expanded from a point would have been the universe before the Big Bang, and whatever condensed into that object was itself the universe before that, and so on. The vast universe we see today exists as an expanse of energy, matter and spacetime. 13 billion-ish years ago, the universe would have existed as a single point of unknown composition, and before that, the universe could have existed as energy, an unknown object akin to supermassive black holes, or even ordinary mass that collapsed to form that point just as we already know black holes do.
See? If you allow the possibility of something having always existed, then the universe itself could have always existed in some form. If you declare that everything MUST have a creator, then God must have been created, too. Otherwise, you're making an arbitrary exception to your own claim. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 05:09:22 PM · #603 |
To the replay machine!
Actually the whole tangent started with  Nullix, not me. I responded to your post at 10/19 02:04:43 PM. I cannot find any input by myself before that point, except when I was talking to Odyssey about order.
Originally posted by Shannon:
Sure, as long as you check any rational thought at the door. If god is the creator, then who/what created god? If a creator wasn't necessary for the infinite complexity of an omniscient being, then why must it be necessary for far less complex structures and processes? You might as well say man isn't created, he is the creator (same logic). Either complex things require creators or they don't. Say hello to the corner. |
Perhaps I'm seeing where we are not communicating. You may be using the term "universe" to denote what is commonly now called the "multiverse". In any common scientific definition, our "universe" began at the Big Bang.
I may even have stated your position in my very first reply to you at 10/19 02:33:45
Originally posted by Jason, the wise:
Except that road goes both ways. If we postulate that the universe wasn't created, why can't we postulate an uncreated creator? While such a supposition seems unecessary, it gets around the fact that all evidence we currently have points to an actual beginning to our universe. So really we all assume a creator for our universe, the question is whether that creator is more like us (ie. intelligent) or more like our universe (ie. a multiverse). |
We'd all get along better if we'd read more carefully. ;)
Louis, see above and the quote below:
Originally posted by Shannon:
Likewise, the universe may be both eternal and eternally changing, |
Perhaps he means multiverse here. "universe" made no sense unless you counted the singularity as part of the universe. So I extended it to that and figured he meant the singularity was eternal. I think he just means the possibility of a multiverse. He can confirm if he wants.
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 17:14:14. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 05:23:23 PM · #604 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Did he say the big bang singularity could be eternal? |
Nope. Only in the sense that EVERYTHING is essentially eternal. Your body mass previously "existed" in the form of the foods you consumed, those foods previously existed in the form of the nutrients (or converted solar energy in the case of plants) that they consumed, those proteins and other molecules previously existed as heavy elements cast off from stellar explosions, which in turn previously existed as hydrogen that underwent nuclear fusion, the hydrogen previously existed as energy that condensed into matter, and so on. Pretty mind boggling to think about, but also perfectly consistent with what we already know. Nothing poofs into existence— only the forms change. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 05:34:59 PM · #605 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Nothing poofs into existence— only the forms change. |
Did I get your jist right in the post above?
BTW, again, this is not technically true as we posit that pairs of matter/anti-matter particles can form out of "nothing". |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 05:49:07 PM · #606 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps he means multiverse here. "universe" made no sense unless you counted the singularity as part of the universe. So I extended it to that and figured he meant the singularity was eternal. I think he just means the possibility of a multiverse. He can confirm if he wants. |
No, I didn't invoke the need for a multiverse. One will suffice for this example. The current universe that we accept as the space and stuff around us is expanding. When it was half its present size, it was still the universe. When it was a trillionth of its present size, it was still the universe. If the universe is all space and matter, then does it cease to be the universe if compressed to [nearly] infinite density and zero volume? That is, after all, pretty much what a black hole is supposed to be, and we consider that to be a real object that exists. A stellar collapse is the start of a black hole just as the Big Bang is the "beginning" of the universe, but in both cases the names only describe a new form of what was already there.
(Added "nearly" for clarity since this may be an oversimplification of something that approaches undefinable numbers, but never quite gets there).
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 20:29:55. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 05:53:40 PM · #607 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
this is not technically true as we posit that pairs of matter/anti-matter particles can form out of "nothing". |
To my understanding, it's still true since a pair of matter/anti-matter particles represent the balanced conversion of energy to matter (not creating something from nothing). |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 06:03:36 PM · #608 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps he means multiverse here. "universe" made no sense unless you counted the singularity as part of the universe. So I extended it to that and figured he meant the singularity was eternal. I think he just means the possibility of a multiverse. He can confirm if he wants. |
No, I didn't invoke the need for a multiverse. One will suffice for this example. The current universe that we accept as the space and stuff around us is expanding. When it was half its present size, it was still the universe. When it was a trillionth of its present size, it was still the universe. If the universe is all space and matter, then does it cease to be the universe if compressed to infinite density and zero volume? That is, after all, pretty much what a black hole is supposed to be, and we consider that to be a real object that exists. A stellar collapse is the start of a black hole just as the Big Bang is the "beginning" of the universe, but in both cases the names only describe a new form of what was already there. |
Oh for heaven's sake Shannon, make up your mind. You are now back to describing a singularity that lasts forever. If you are talking about an oscillating universe and a repeated Big Bounce, this has been pretty well discarded by the prominent physicists of the time (or at the very least you should consider that it has some major objections). If you are talking about a singularity that exists within another domain, that is a multiverse. Start using some proper terminology and save us all some time.
This wiki snip may help you: The word Universe is usually defined as encompassing everything. However, using an alternate definition, some have speculated that this "Universe" is just one of many disconnected "universes", which are collectively denoted as the multiverse.
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 18:07:16. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 06:05:22 PM · #609 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
this is not technically true as we posit that pairs of matter/anti-matter particles can form out of "nothing". |
To my understanding, it's still true since a pair of matter/anti-matter particles represent the balanced conversion of energy to matter (not creating something from nothing). |
To my understanding, it actually temporarily violates the conservation of energy, but then they quickly annihilate each other in a case of "no harm, no foul".
Quantum foam
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 18:11:25. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 07:02:49 PM · #610 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are now back to describing a singularity that lasts forever. |
I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing until you get it. So far, you fail. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 07:36:44 PM · #611 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are now back to describing a singularity that lasts forever. |
I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing until you get it. So far, you fail. |
If you start using proper terminology I might actually get it...
Louis, can you interpret for me. Are you understanding his 05:49 post in a different manner?
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 19:46:40. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 08:21:37 PM · #612 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you start using proper terminology I might actually get it... |
Unlikely. I defined the terms along with the examples and you still decided to play semantics.
Originally posted by scalvert:
The current universe that we accept as the space and stuff around us... If the universe is all space and matter... |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are talking about an oscillating universe and a repeated Big Bounce, this has been pretty well discarded by the prominent physicists of the time (or at the very least you should consider that it has some major objections). |
On the contrary, that possibility is still very much a contender. A more detailed explanation is here. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 08:43:35 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How do you prove a supernatural explanation? |
More to the point (and troubling)... how would you DISprove one? |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 08:45:44 PM · #614 |
| Oscillating universe it is then. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 09:15:39 PM · #615 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Oscillating universe it is then. |
You're waffling. ;-P |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 10:49:54 PM · #616 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay.......that\'s fine.
But don\'t you think it\'s strange at all that there are so many others who because they don\'t share your beliefs who by your understanding and faith will never achieve salvation?
By my way of thinking it is not I that decides who and who does not spend eternity with God... it is God. Since in my view he created all things who am I to tell the one who made me that he is not being fair (which seems to be your inference).
Doesn\'t your own theory that the implanted morality could go so awry that more than half the population is doomed to burn in Hell seem at least to be sort of odd?
By my way of thinking it is not the amount of moral or immoral acts that will determine your final state but your reliance and faith in Jesus as your intercessor before God the Father.
What about all those incredible humanists? Jews? Muslims? Are all the people through history, theoretically created by God destined to NOT achieve salvation because they don\'t meet your standards?
They are not my standards and I am not their judge. I do not believe that people are \'destined\' to NOT achieve salvation.
There\'s the fly in the ointment. Since I wasn\'t brought up to blindly believe the credo of one faith, and I do believe that there is inherent good in the human animal, what am I supposed to think about all you fervent people who believe that YOUR brand of answer is the only one?
I do not blindly believe in God as you suppose. In fact quite the opposite. Through prayer I have a relationship with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It is very real. I don\'t expect you to believe this but it is the case nonetheless.
How can so many be so wrong when their structure is fundamentally the same, yet allows no room for what each sect feels is misguided?
I would disagree that the structure of other faiths is fundamentally the same as the Christian faith is fundamentally based on Jesus and his resurrection. No other faith has this as the fundamental structure.
For me, there is no other choice than to entertain the possibility that whatever concept I have of God could be completely and totally wrong.
It is understandable that you would feel this way having no relationship with your creator other than the idea that we were created instead of being a random chance happening. I would and did at one time feel the same way. This thinking did eventually lead me to being atheist at one point in my life.
That doesn\'t make my faith any less, but it sure as heck ensures that I don\'t wander around spouting that I have the answer and am certain that you\'re not going to achieve salvation \'cause you don\'t do it my way.
We have had this conversation before and I want to be very careful not to offend because it is not my intention and sometimes words without verbal cues can lead to misunderstanding. Correct me if I am wrong: You believe there is a God but you do not know who he is. You believe that he is \'good\' but do not know what good is because you do not have a relationship with the creator. So you substitute your own moral judgments of what seems right and fair to you and ascribe them to God because God is good. My point here is that I, unlike you, do not decide for God what is good based on my own moral judgments but upon the relationship I have with Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I am led to a greater understanding, day by day, in what is or is not moral. The more I submit to his counsel the more is revealed. Just as Jesus denied himself and indeed submitted himself so that I could be reconciled to the father I seek to submit myself wholly to his Holy Spirit. I accept correction when I do wrong and learn. It is not a matter of doing it my way. It is a matter of doing it God\'s way.
I think faith is a thing of beauty; I find most religions to be obnoxious and arrogant.....and in some cases, terrifiying. |
Religion is often tainted by those purporting to be religious twisting the truth for their own gain and in search of their own comfort. It is terrifying when those who purport to be the representatives of God do not behave in a Godly way and in fact seek not for God but for themselves. You are right, true faith is a thing of beauty.
I know you may not agree with me and my assessments nor do I expect you to but the answers given are what I believe and respectfully I submit them to you.
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 22:53:50. |
|
|
|
10/20/2009 11:45:42 PM · #617 |
Ooh, I gotta say, good answers Darren! I don't mean this in a "Smackdown" sort of way, but in a "I Dig It" one.
Message edited by author 2009-10-20 23:46:38. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 12:23:58 AM · #618 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ooh, I gotta say, good answers Darren! |
Shall I presume you don't recognize the direct contradictions stated within? |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 01:04:17 AM · #619 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are now back to describing a singularity that lasts forever. |
I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing until you get it. So far, you fail. |
If you start using proper terminology I might actually get it...
Louis, can you interpret for me. Are you understanding his 05:49 post in a different manner? |
I assume his edit helped. I don't get "infinite big bang" out of anything said. It seems to me he just said the universe might be transformative, and the beginning of its current form (the big bang) was one such transformation. All the junk in the universe was still there, it just changed. It wasn't created. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 01:29:30 AM · #620 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are now back to describing a singularity that lasts forever. |
I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing until you get it. So far, you fail. |
If you start using proper terminology I might actually get it...
Louis, can you interpret for me. Are you understanding his 05:49 post in a different manner? |
I assume his edit helped. I don't get "infinite big bang" out of anything said. It seems to me he just said the universe might be transformative, and the beginning of its current form (the big bang) was one such transformation. All the junk in the universe was still there, it just changed. It wasn't created. |
Ya, I get that now. The oscillating universe idea, I guess. While I would consider it to be a simpler idea (in the typically incorrect application of Occam's razor sort of way), I guess from my armchair I see too many problems or at least should say that the experts I've read don't like it. To quote Hawking, "The idea that Bangs follow Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe. Though no theory has been developed to explain how this could ever happen, it has a certain philosophical appeal to people who like the idea of a universe without end." I agree with him in seeing the appeal of such a position, but it's basically "scientific religion", that is, an idea with no scientific merit (ie. it's not a theory), only philosophical appeal. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 08:44:42 AM · #621 |
The way I see it (and this is grossly oversimplifying), not all that long ago everyone believed in a steady-state universe, an unchanging/eternal universe. Then Hoyle and people like that proved it was expanding, and this caused some problems, to put it mildly. Expanding from *what*? End result? The "big bang" theory.
But there's still a problem there; How did it all *start*? Now, the religious folks have their answer, of course; the big bang = God's first instant of creation. The scientists, naturally, don't buy that, but still, where does it all *come* from? So, in the classic way of humankind, they deferred the issue by postulating the oscillating universe; this one will stop expanding, start shrinking, ultimately collapse, and be recreated in a new big bang, unto the end of time.
It can't be proven, it's impossible to test it (there's no conceivable way to see deeper into the origin of the universe than the instant of the big bang), so it's a matter of conjecture and/or faith. Basically, a very *religious* theory, if you ask me :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2009 09:39:39 AM · #622 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I would consider it to be a simpler idea (in the typically incorrect application of Occam's razor sort of way)..." |
Friesen's Safety Razor: "The simplest explanation is typically the correct one is typically applied incorrectly."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To quote Hawking, "The idea that Bangs follow Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe. Though no theory has been developed to explain how this could ever happen... |
That quote is from a 1997 PBS series. The Scientific American article positing an explanation is from 2007 (and chock full of scientific merit).
Moreover, an oscillating universe doesn't have to be the only explanation. Dealing with infinity is tricky stuff. As I alluded to earlier, a black hole may not actually reach infinite density and zero volume, even if it appears to. The very nature of infinity prevents you from reaching that point since every increase or reduction is always followed by another non-zero increase or reduction. Relativity leads to some bizarre conclusions, too. For example, E=MC^2 indicates that anything moving at the speed of light must have zero mass, yet any galaxy with a redshift greater than about 1.4 (there are many) is currently moving away from us at greater than the speed of light due to the expansion of space itself. Just as parallel lines seem to converge at infinity from our POV when they really don't, the universe itself may not be infinite or infinitely old, but apparently so. It may not require a "beginning" any more than it requires outside borders.
Message edited by author 2009-10-21 09:39:58. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 11:33:52 AM · #623 |
I couldn't read the whole article Shannon. It cut off after a page. I also didn't realize the Hawking quote was from 1997 so I agree it's possibly outdated, although I feel confident if I needed to I could find much more up to date rebuttals of the Oscillating Universe. In the end I just agree with Robert when he says:
Originally posted by Robert:
It can't be proven, it's impossible to test it (there's no conceivable way to see deeper into the origin of the universe than the instant of the big bang), so it's a matter of conjecture and/or faith. Basically, a very *religious* theory, if you ask me :-) |
I can go over my beef with the way I see Occam used sometime too. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 12:00:50 PM · #624 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I couldn't read the whole article Shannon. It cut off after a page. |
Odd... I read the whole thing and then copied the link. Try this one. |
|
|
|
10/21/2009 12:03:34 PM · #625 |
| Do you have a subscription? Because at the bottom it says, "Get the rest of the article now" with a "subscribe" button and a "buy the issue" button. |
|
