How did everything really begin?

[Alan McDougall]

Most scientist say,"First there was nothing and then it exploded" HA, HA, HE, HE"

 

THE "EVER EXISTING ONE", WHO IS EXISTENCE ITSELF IS THE PRIME CAUSE OF EVERYTHING.

[pwagen]

Most Not a single scientist say,"First there was nothing and then it exploded" HA, HA, HE, HE"

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think that for anything to come into existence, there needs to be input. The question is, what was the input? Where did it come from? Did it create the entire universe or just our galaxy? I want to know if n^0 truly equals 1 and why is this mathematically true?

[SamBridge]

I think that for anything to come into existence, there needs to be input. The question is, what was the input? Where did it come from? Did it create the entire universe or just our galaxy? I want to know if n^0 truly equals 1 and why is this mathematically true?

Why does there have to be an input? Anyway,

one rule of exponents is when you multiply stuff of the same base, you add the exponents. 3^3 = 3*3^2, 5^8 = 5^3*5*3*5^2, ect. X^0 = x^1*x^(-1), which is the same as multiplying a number by the recipracal of that number, like 2 * 1/2, or 3 * 1/3, which is always 1, because you get 2/2 or 3/3.

Edited May 25, 2013 by SamBridge

[Popcorn Sutton]

Existence without observation is impossible (i hate to use that word but unfortunately there is no known method of proving that something exists without having an observer to verify the claim). In order to verify observation, you need knowledge of what is being observed. Knowledge requires input.

 

To take this to string theory, say there was a single string before all of this happened. If something twanged the string and hence producing a quark, the string had to be twanged. In other words, the string required input. I'm not saying I accept string theory, but that even within that specific framework, input is necessary.

 

Mathematically, take 0 and put it to the power of 0, you get 1. Even then, 0 requires that you put it to the power of 0, which is input.

 

Lets say that after all these years of computers lacking the ability to know about themselves, someone finds a method to make them sentient, it still required input and observation.

[born]

right said from the previous poster - input. First there was will and law(not (y)ours) then there was thought ((y)ours). Then there was will((y)ours) and within powers(instincts, emotions, creativity) then came desire which brought along introversion(psychology - grown by the root of misunderstanding/miscommunication and along creation of selfishness) and since then we have problems, hehehe. Essential was keeping up interconnection (according to not our will but as a rule to exist and a rule to remain so).

 

Mathematics has no meaning if you apply to what eye said above. Mathematics is a failed attempt to express change (time as you commerically use it). A disasteous prison based on what? ..... hehehe

- misunderstanding.

 

But again if you apply what eye said how does it change your belief? Is a key enough or is it not the key for the door you want to open? The answer is yes and yes.

 

Keep it coming....

[SamBridge]

People seem to not understand that mathematics doesn't "fail", merely our usage of it does. There is never an instance in the universe where 1 doesn't equal 1, or that you cannot count to 3 on a relativistic number line of integers. It's easy to exist without something observing it according to our physics, that would have had to have been true for life to form in the first place. There does not have to be an input and an output because you can't describe the whole of the universe as a single function in the first place.

Time did not exist before the universe existed, therefore there was never a time where the universe did not exist, how's that for mind boggling?

[born]

People seem to not understand that mathematics doesn't "fail", merely our usage of it does. There is never an instance in the universe where 1 doesn't equal 1, or that you cannot count to 3 on a relativistic number line of integers. It's easy to exist without something observing it according to our physics, that would have had to have been true for life to form in the first place. There does not have to be an input and an output because you can't describe the whole of the universe as a single function in the first place.

Time did not exist before the universe existed, therefore there was never a time where the universe did not exist, how's that for mind boggling?

you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Maths if you as a scientist approaches it is a cage, simply because it doesn't consider change and so does science in general.

[SamBridge]

you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Maths if you as a scientist approaches it is a cage, simply because it doesn't consider change and so does science in general.

You clearly did not pass high-school English.

[born]

You clearly did not pass high-school English.

yes

[Alan McDougall]

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

 

No you did not or you do not know your astrophysics, that is exactly what they say Of course there is a whole lot of nonsensical wild speculation , that will never, ever, never,ever, be answered scientifically

[pwagen]

 

No you did not or you do not know your astrophysics, that is exactly what they say Of course there is a whole lot of nonsensical wild speculation , that will never, ever, never,ever, be answered scientifically

Citation for the "first there was nothing then it exploded", please.

[born]

No you did not or you do not know your astrophysics, that is exactly what they say Of course there is a whole lot of nonsensical wild speculation , that will never, ever, never,ever, be answered scientifically

could you please elaborate what you mean by "not knowing one's astrophysics"? Now the term astrophysics is wide spread what I googled and wikied but what I don't see is a route map or something.

I am asking not as testing but out of keen interest in your opinion or personal theory if you have one.

I like this thread as it is and I do not want to interfere or bother. Just discussion from mind to mind.

[Alan McDougall]

Citation for the "first there was nothing then it exploded", please.

 

Use one brain cell,please it is obvious what I mean , the just say the same thing in a very long worded paper,

 

But if you insist I can do a little research and return. I seems to me that you might know the answer, I would be facinated how you the very first sentient entity in the universe, came to know and understand the ultimate question?

[Moontanman]

No you did not or you do not know your astrophysics, that is exactly what they say Of course there is a whole lot of nonsensical wild speculation , that will never, ever, never,ever, be answered scientifically

 

 

Never ever? That's quite an outrageous assertion.... There are more than one avenue of investigation and several theories as to what was before the big bang. To say it will never be answered is not a bet I would make...

[pwagen]

Use one brain cell,please it is obvious what I mean

It's obvious you're wrong on the current scientific consensus. In other words, what "most scientists say".

I seems to me that you might know the answer, I would be facinated how you the very first sentient entity in the universe, came to know and understand the ultimate question?

While I appreciate my unimaginable intellect might shine through despite me trying to be subtle about it, I don't claim to know the answer to "the ultimate question". Unless, of course, you're talking about the question from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, then it's 42.

 

I do, however, know that the whole "first there was nothing then this nothing exploded" is complete bunkum.

[born]

It's obvious you're wrong on the current scientific consensus. In other words, what "most scientists say".While I appreciate my unimaginable intellect might shine through despite me trying to be subtle about it, I don't claim to know the answer to "the ultimate question". Unless, of course, you're talking about the question from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, then it's 42.

 

I do, however, know that the whole "first there was nothing then this nothing exploded" is complete bunkum.

I like that one with the current scientific consensus so let me try to translate universally:

more than 1 idiot in the same room. How's maths going to react to an insult ? Maybe(in case there are only 2 scientists)..... they start trying to break π or prime numbers. According to the "rules" that are commonly tolerated these days there are 2 ways: explaining them as they stand or ignoring them as a rule while accepting them as a law. Silly but still challenging in this case for example would be: writing down any of them and adding a comma with the purpose to break...... Then we(the neutral observer witnessing the insulted) will have to leave mikro and slide into makro seeing the boys starting to break their heads by never stopping to write after the comma again. Now that's not the end because there are still 2 scientists in the room(even when only their minds are really present) who both want to be better and faster than the other one powered by the same motivation (kicking the insulters ass hypothetically) so we need to add imagination(giving them some credit out of curiosity) and here we go next. What they write on the paper is not enough so they need to put the writing into another dimension (otherwise it cannot travel and it really has to - so we support them out of mercy now). We are there and ready to expand their writing to touch the end of the room. It breaks through the roof ( ) and goes it's way just straight like no familiar line could be more precise describing it. It goes and goes and the hole in the roof is so big that both scientists can see the journey of the stream (what a wonderful creation ). It accelerates so fast that just the eyes alone cannot follow and causes both heads to start spinning so the scientists have to sit down on a chair(needing 4-6 legs instead of xx), exhausted but still feeling challenged and excited no less desperate though to be first (both of them but no way together). Suddenly(Time ceased to exist as they both are in a mindstage of agony/resurrection) from the bottom of one chair the stream breaks through it and peaks one of them where it usually hurts most. Lucky enough he jumps up and what he sees is the last number has arrived after going through all, each and everything. The number is 1 but the problem is that both can see it clearly at the same time. So it istantly creates further tension: Who was first or who was faster or might it just mean that it all comes from 1 or through 1 and if that's a sort of result in the first place should it be shared or broken again or hidden..... or does it actually have a meaning at all? What does the other one think??

 

2nd way would be to ignore my statement and calling me back as the bigger idiot but that again would create a new problem, not mine though because I had good fun writing this. And sorry for my absence at highschool

 

Morality of the story: lead if you can but ruling you must not. Show some respect if you want to be respected. Don't hurt just because you were.

 

In addition:

Pi was a joke as it should already point to that there is no end after the comma. Still there was the chance that one of the 2 is a bit smarter than the other by skipping the start of stupdidty before it begins - again.

[pwagen]

I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean. But I will say this:

2nd way would be to ignore my statement and calling me back as the bigger idiot(...)

 

Morality of the story: lead if you can but ruling you must not. Show some respect if you want to be respected. Don't hurt just because you were.

If anyone feel personally insulted when their theories or ideas are debunked/falsified/corrected, that's their problem. They are not their ideas and their ideas are not them. Telling someone they're wrong is not disrespecting that person.

 

If, however, someone goes on targeting a person instead of what that person is saying, that would be an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy. For example, telling someone to "use one brain cell" doesn't add a whole lot to a discussion, now does it?

[SamBridge]

I like that one with the current scientific consensus so let me try to translate universally:

more than 1 idiot in the same room. How's maths going to react to an insult ? Maybe(in case there are only 2 scientists)..... they start trying to break π or prime numbers. According to the "rules" that are commonly tolerated these days there are 2 ways: explaining them as they stand or ignoring them as a rule while accepting them as a law. Silly but still challenging in this case for example would be: writing down any of them and adding a comma with the purpose to break...... Then we(the neutral observer witnessing the insulted) will have to leave mikro and slide into makro seeing the boys starting to break their heads by never stopping to write after the comma again. Now that's not the end because there are still 2 scientists in the room(even when only their minds are really present) who both want to be better and faster than the other one powered by the same motivation (kicking the insulters ass hypothetically) so we need to add imagination(giving them some credit out of curiosity) and here we go next. What they write on the paper is not enough so they need to put the writing into another dimension (otherwise it cannot travel and it really has to - so we support them out of mercy now). We are there and ready to expand their writing to touch the end of the room. It breaks through the roof ( ) and goes it's way just straight like no familiar line could be more precise describing it. It goes and goes and the hole in the roof is so big that both scientists can see the journey of the stream (what a wonderful creation ). It accelerates so fast that just the eyes alone cannot follow and causes both heads to start spinning so the scientists have to sit down on a chair(needing 4-6 legs instead of xx), exhausted but still feeling challenged and excited no less desperate though to be first (both of them but no way together). Suddenly(Time ceased to exist as they both are in a mindstage of agony/resurrection) from the bottom of one chair the stream breaks through it and peaks one of them where it usually hurts most. Lucky enough he jumps up and what he sees is the last number has arrived after going through all, each and everything. The number is 1 but the problem is that both can see it clearly at the same time. So it istantly creates further tension: Who was first or who was faster or might it just mean that it all comes from 1 or through 1 and if that's a sort of result in the first place should it be shared or broken again or hidden..... or does it actually have a meaning at all? What does the other one think??

 

2nd way would be to ignore my statement and calling me back as the bigger idiot but that again would create a new problem, not mine though because I had good fun writing this. And sorry for my absence at highschool

 

Morality of the story: lead if you can but ruling you must not. Show some respect if you want to be respected. Don't hurt just because you were.

 

In addition:

Pi was a joke as it should already point to that there is no end after the comma. Still there was the chance that one of the 2 is a bit smarter than the other by skipping the start of stupdidty before it begins - again.

Again, math is a form of logic itself, math does not fail, only out application of it does. If we use position=t^2 to describe something traveling at a constant rate, it does not mean position can never = t^2, it merely means we did not apply the right equation to describe a pattern in a specific situation.

Edited May 26, 2013 by SamBridge

[Alan McDougall]

It's obvious you're wrong on the current scientific consensus. In other words, what "most scientists say".While I appreciate my unimaginable intellect might shine through despite me trying to be subtle about it, I don't claim to know the answer to "the ultimate question". Unless, of course, you're talking about the question from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, then it's 42.

 

I do, however, know that the whole "first there was nothing then this nothing exploded" is complete bunkum.

 

 

How do you know first there was nothing and then exploded, "complete

bunkum" Give me a better scientific answer? (Big Bang brought space and

time matter and energy and the four fundamental constants that hold the whole

thing together).At present that is far as the scientific community can go with

the question?

 

If we move further we must tackle existence itself, thus; is the universe

all existence, at present that is all we can state at present, without going

into wild speculations about the multi-universe or other dimensions of reality.

 

With respectful recognition of your enlighten understanding that

seems so far beyond my puny little brain, maybe we are living in a digital virtual

program, with god like beings,learning to program from their version of "Object" right up to such a high level program,

 

That has only four commants

 

(1) this and that="that", (2) that and "this" ="this",( 3) that and that = this"(.4) this and this ="that"

 

Hey! I just invented the DNA code!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2013 by Alan McDougall

[pwagen]

 

How do you know first there was nothing and then exploded, "complete

bunkum" Give me a better scientific answer?

I'm still talking about the scientific consensus. You claimed that "scientists say..." and then went on to give an inaccurate description of what scientists actually say.

 

Scientists don't say "first there was nothing". The origin of the components are unknown, and might very well stay that way. Therefore it's incorrect to say there was nothing to begin with, the components might as well have been there for an eternity, we simply don't know. But not knowing is not an excuse to put misconstructed ideas into scientists' mouths.

 

If you want to be picky, there also was no explosion. There was, and still is, an expansion.

 

(Big Bang brought space and time matter and energy and the four fundamental constants that hold the whole thing together).At present that is far as the scientific community can go with the question?

Not quite, but it's a common misconception. The BB theory doesn't deal with the actual origin, it only describes the process of expansion which is still observable today.

[born]

I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean. But I will say this:If anyone feel personally insulted when their theories or ideas are debunked/falsified/corrected, that's their problem. They are not their ideas and their ideas are not them. Telling someone they're wrong is not disrespecting that person.

 

If, however, someone goes on targeting a person instead of what that person is saying, that would be an ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy. For example, telling someone to "use one brain cell" doesn't add a whole lot to a discussion, now does it?

ideas are good as they structure thoughts. We create ideas conciously or subliminal and we do that always and even without additional stimulation. Wrong and right changes accordingly while permanently swtiching forth-back(conscious-subconcious/self centered-selfish) depending on our level of preconditioning. Moving thoughts driven by emotions. Our real elements are Good-Bad-Right-Wrong and our duties are to seperate them into 2. All the rest is a hobby and nothing else. The secret is none and the answers we all know, being not aware of them for exampla right now doesn't change the fact. Interconnection is the key and this is what we had in the beginning and this is where we are forced to get back to. Us (the power of mind) was created with a bang if you like that explanation. How it really happened is the silliest question ever and it is driven by the root of greed for power to do the same in order to rule, control and therwith abuse every thing else. Interconnection is a multidimensial corps and it explains every topic that develops or was created by ourselves: Culture, Religion, Science, Magic, Love, Hate, Life, Death. Maths is a cage if it has no fixed target. So is money(a tool to connect in a good way or a curse to destruction - starvation and war). Life is and our(human) will is allowed to stay - so far.

[Ophiolite]

How do you know first there was nothing and then exploded, "complete

bunkum" Give me a better scientific answer?

You asserted that this was the belief of scientists. It is not.

You were asked to provide a citation that would support the claim that "scientists say" that "first there was nothing then it exploded".

You failed to do so and made feeble excuse, promising to "do some research and return". I suspect we may wait a very long time for that.

 

It would be proper and would gain you a great deal of respect, if you were to admit that you are mistaken in your understanding of cosmology and the claims of the Big Bang theory. You have an opportunity to do that now. Will you take it?

[PeterJ]

How do you know first there was nothing and then exploded, "complete

bunkum" Give me a better scientific answer?

There isn't a scientific answer. This is metaphysics. We can't expect physics to answer a question that is metaphysical, the two disciplines are designed to be mutually exclusive. If we do not see this then we are going to go round and round in circles until the forum runs out of storage space. This is not rocket science.

 

If the idea is that physics can answer this question then the thread should be moved to physics and out of philosophy.

[born]

There isn't a scientific answer. This is metaphysics. ......

 

Again, math is a form of logic itself, math does not fail, only out application of it does. If we use position=t^2 to describe something traveling at a constant rate, it does not mean position can never = t^2, it merely means we did not apply the right equation to describe a pattern in a specific situation.

First, this is not programming and I for example am not a computer while I know you are also not so the language used (mathematically perverted highschool English?) is not appropriate. Not for this discussion.

Drifting a little bit into the field where you are hiding for whatever reason: There is no constant rate of anything. Apply just this claim as an experiment and you will finally find your limits (personally first and universally later - there is no difference). But then you cannot really experiment because you don't know both - where you came from and where you are going to. I use the you not to provoke.

Second ....