How did everything really begin?

[SamBridge]

Unfortunately that post does not contribute much to the point at hand. It was already known you could divide or expand time into any quantity you like indefinitely. Planck time is merely the smallest division of time that has any physical meaning.

Edited June 4, 2013 by SamBridge

[Greylorn]

I agree with the big bang model having started our current universe, however it does not explain where the singularity comes from. I thus look at the evidence, and matter/energy itself. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. It simply changes form. Thus to me, all the energy that exists is eternal, having no beginning. Given that energy is in constant flux in one way or another, it is also inevitable that our Universe would have come about, and it's inevitable that it will come about again along with an infinite amount of variations of it.

 

Yours is one of the more thoughtful replioes here, largely thanks to your recognition of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nonetheless, I invite you to reconsider it on these grounds:

 

Big Bang (BB) theory not only fails to explain the origin of its mysterious singularity, it fails to explain:

 

1. What triggered its explosion into a universe?

 

2. How the 20-odd constants necessary to make the resultant universe work properly happened to be conveniently embedded within this, ah, "singularity?"

 

3. The notion of a "singularity" arose from mathematics. Exactly what is a physical singularity?

 

4. Exactly how did the BB create the subatomic particles and form them into atoms while the entire mix of stuff generated by the alleged bang was rapidly expanding from a central point, making the subatomic particles less likely to interact with one another? (You'll notice that particle accelerators do their thing by forcing a lot of high-energy particles together into the same confined space.)

 

Therefore I invite you to give up BB theory entirely, on the grounds that it is a silly hand-waving explanation for the beginnings of things that is functionally identical to the omnipotent-God theory, but not an improvement.

[Alan McDougall]

Yours is one of the more thoughtful replioes here, largely thanks to your recognition of the First Law of Thermodynamics. Nonetheless, I invite you to reconsider it on these grounds:

 

Big Bang (BB) theory not only fails to explain the origin of its mysterious singularity, it fails to explain:

 

1. What triggered its explosion into a universe?

 

2. How the 20-odd constants necessary to make the resultant universe work properly happened to be conveniently embedded within this, ah, "singularity?"

 

3. The notion of a "singularity" arose from mathematics. Exactly what is a physical singularity?

 

4. Exactly how did the BB create the subatomic particles and form them into atoms while the entire mix of stuff generated by the alleged bang was rapidly expanding from a central point, making the subatomic particles less likely to interact with one another? (You'll notice that particle accelerators do their thing by forcing a lot of high-energy particles together into the same confined space.)

 

Therefore I invite you to give up BB theory entirely, on the grounds that it is a silly hand-waving explanation for the beginnings of things that is functionally identical to the omnipotent-God theory, but not an improvement.

 

You are actually referring to God, but are to shy to say it, however I agree with you , because up to now it is the only answer that has any meaning, in my opinion, of course?

[Alan McDougall]

Unfortunately that post does not contribute much to the point at hand. It was already known you could divide or expand time into any quantity you like indefinitely. Planck time is merely the smallest division of time that has any physical meaning.

 

 

If you could just read what wrote in my post 175, you will see that I stated that Plank time is thought to be wre reality takes hold in our universe (The same meaning yours "any physical meaning") So if my post does not contribute much then so does your)

 

I admit my post 175 was very long, but it showed all the discrete time packages, used by science at present.

[Moontanman]

 

You are actually referring to God, but are to shy to say it, however I agree with you , because up to now it is the only answer that has any meaning, in my opinion, of course?

 

 

So you want to go down that rathole? If god created the universe then what created god? If you say we can't know that then how is the notion of god any better than saying we can't know the what caused the universe? If you say god is eternal then why not say the universe is eternal? Just because we can't at this time say what came before or where the substance of the universe came from don't make god did it an answer...

[SamBridge]

you will see that I stated that Plank time is thought to be wre reality takes hold in our universe

And this has little meaning, that does not make physical sense, our arbitrary definition of a unit of time has no relationship with how the universe functions, reality functions regardless of units of Planck time like for instance in string theory and quantum foam in black holes.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[Alan McDougall]

So you want to go down that rathole? If god created the universe then what created god? If you say we can't know that then how is the notion of god any better than saying we can't know the what caused the universe? If you say god is eternal then why not say the universe is eternal? Just because we can't at this time say what came before or where the substance of the universe came from don't make god did it an answer...

 

I will go down any rat hole I want to without your permission, dear fellow.. If god exists? he/it must be infinitely more intelligent than you or I. We might be closer to a virus, that this entity is. to us. Yet people pontificate about somethings beyond human comprehension, such as what is existence? and did it have a cause? and did this cause have a cause?. Or is there an uncaused cause? an Alpha- Point? if you like, without an Omega Point?.

 

And this has little meaning, that does not make physical sense, our arbitrary definition of a unit of time has no relationship with how the universe functions, reality functions regardless of units of Planck time like for instance in string theory and quantum foam in black holes.

 

You know this for sure?

[SamBridge]

You know this for sure?

100%. Electricity existed before we discovered and harnessed it, and so did almost every other thing in the universe.

[Moontanman]

I will go down any rat hole I want to without your permission, dear fellow.. If god exists? he/it must be infinitely more intelligent than you or I. We might be closer to a virus, that this entity is. to us. Yet people pontificate about somethings beyond human comprehension, such as what is existence? and did it have a cause? and did this cause have a cause?. Or is there an uncaused cause? an Alpha- Point? if you like, without an Omega Point?.

 

 

Once you start speculation on what caused the universe why do you go a god? Maby some brobdingnagian creature just excretes universes mindlessly?

[Alan McDougall]

Once you start speculation on what caused the universe why do you go a god? Maby some brobdingnagian creature just excretes universes mindlessly?

 

Now that is a huge statement from a great intellect, sadly misspelled!

[Moontanman]

Now that is a huge statement from a great intellect, sadly misspelled!

 

 

So You have nothing to refute what I said other than an insulting remark about my spelling skills which my spell checker refutes easily... brobdingnagian

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Brobdingnagian

 

 

Brob•ding•nag•i•an (ˌbrɒb dɪŋˈnæg i ən)

 

adj.

of huge size; gigantic.

[after the land of Brobdingnag in Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726)]

Edited June 5, 2013 by Moontanman

[Alan McDougall]

So You have nothing to refute what I said other than an insulting remark about my spelling skills which my spell checker refutes easily... brobdingnagian

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Brobdingnagian

 

I regret that statement of mine:unsure: , I thought wrongly that you were the one who is constantly advertising and spaming on our forum , especially in this debate I constantly get the following type of garbage in my email in-box , which is supposed to inform me there has been a response to the debate.

 

I will report it again of course!

 

This is what I got as an example

Spam removed.

Edited June 14, 2013 by hypervalent_iodine
Spam message removed

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

A lot of spam has been getting past our filters lately. If you have your notifications set to e-mail you on replies to threads, you'll get those sorts of e-mails if a spammer got to them. We delete spam as fast as possible, so you may not see it when you get to the thread.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Further to the above note, copy/pasting the spam only benefits the spammers. I've removed the message, but thank you for letting us know. Please report spam messages if you are receiving them via PM or if you notice them on the forums.

[Moontanman]

 

I regret that statement of mine:unsure: , I thought wrongly that you were the one who is constantly advertising and spaming on our forum , especially in this debate I constantly get the following type of garbage in my email in-box , which is supposed to inform me there has been a response to the debate.

 

I will report it again of course!

 

This is what I got as an example

 

 

Alan, you know I'm not a spammer...

[Alan McDougall]

Alan, you know I'm not a spammer...

 

 

I am very sorry Moontanman!, it is obvious you to anyone that you are not a spammer,! it was very late over here in South Africa where I live and I only briefly looked at the unusual word (brobdingnagian) without thinking beyond my obviously very short nose I promise this will not happen again.

 

I did not even take the time to notice the source of the comment and feel ridiculousness.

[Moontanman]

I am very sorry Moontanman!, it is obvious you to anyone that you are not a spammer,! it was very late over here in South Africa where I live and I only briefly looked at the unusual word (brobdingnagian) without thinking beyond my obviously very short nose I promise this will not happen again.

 

I did not even take the time to notice the source of the comment and feel ridiculousness.

 

 

No problem...

[Alan McDougall]

Seeing this is a scientific forum , maybe we should take god out of the equation, so let me pose the following.

 

What came before the big bang, of course if it happened?

Is our universe just one of an infinite number of universes?

Is what we call "Existence" both eternal and infinite?

Did the universe really have a beginning?

Etc?

[Moontanman]

Seeing this is a scientific forum , maybe we should take god out of the equation, so let me pose the following.

 

What came before the big bang, of course if it happened?

Is our universe just one of an infinite number of universes?

Is what we call "Existence" both eternal and infinite?

Did the universe really have a beginning?

Etc?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

[SSDS]

Seeing this is a scientific forum , maybe we should take god out of the equation, so let me pose the following.

 

What came before the big bang, of course if it happened?

Is our universe just one of an infinite number of universes?

Is what we call "Existence" both eternal and infinite?

Did the universe really have a beginning?

Etc?

 

 

To answer on “How did everything really begin” is desirable to answer previously on: What is the everything? What is “begin”? And so – what is the “time”? In reality the everything is an absolutely infinite Set “Information”, which exists always, “in absolutely long time”; and where all has happened absolutely long

time ago.

If more specifically, our Universe exists and evolves in absolutely long time – as well as it has evolved absolutely long time ago. At that our Universe is only infinitesimal – though a huge enough for humans - (dynamical, evolving) informational subset of the Set; there are possible an

infinite number of other “Universes” in the Set, which are some informational systems also, possibly with another – or the same - logical rules (Nature and society laws) that govern the evolution. There isn’t anything surprising in such a reality; including – in that all universes (an “non-universes”) very possibly interact by some ways.

Our Universe consists of three main subsets “Matter”, “Alive” and (at least human’s) “Consciousness” – something like the human, which consists of material

substances, some rules that make the substances “alive” and the human’s consciousness (the men was made “in the image and likeness of” -?).

Since the cause and the way of Beginning, as well as all what will happen at the Evolution, was known “absolutely long time ago”, formally there isn’t a problem

– how that was (is, will be); anything, including the fate of any human, every her/his thought was known and is now realizing as always existing scenario.

Though it is interesting to attempt to know this scenario – thus the sciences exist… More see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 Cheers

[Alan McDougall]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

 

Hi I went to the link and read the short description of an Ekpyrotic universe, the problem with this idea, is the one way flow of entropy, which in my opinion, would prevent an eternal periodic universe

 

 

 

 

To answer on “How did everything really begin” is desirable to answer previously on: What is the everything? What is “begin”? And so – what is the “time”? In reality the everything is an absolutely infinite Set “Information”, which exists always, “in absolutely long time”; and where all has happened absolutely long

time ago.

If more specifically, our Universe exists and evolves in absolutely long time – as well as it has evolved absolutely long time ago. At that our Universe is only infinitesimal – though a huge enough for humans - (dynamical, evolving) informational subset of the Set; there are possible an

infinite number of other “Universes” in the Set, which are some informational systems also, possibly with another – or the same - logical rules (Nature and society laws) that govern the evolution. There isn’t anything surprising in such a reality; including – in that all universes (an “non-universes”) very possibly interact by some ways.

Our Universe consists of three main subsets “Matter”, “Alive” and (at least human’s) “Consciousness” – something like the human, which consists of material

substances, some rules that make the substances “alive” and the human’s consciousness (the men was made “in the image and likeness of” -?).

Since the cause and the way of Beginning, as well as all what will happen at the Evolution, was known “absolutely long time ago”, formally there isn’t a problem

– how that was (is, will be); anything, including the fate of any human, every her/his thought was known and is now realizing as always existing scenario.

Though it is interesting to attempt to know this scenario – thus the sciences exist… More see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 Cheers

 

I don't get what you are trying to say in that long post?

[Moontanman]

Hi I went to the link and read the short description of an Ekpyrotic universe, the problem with this idea, is the one way flow of entropy, which in my opinion, would prevent an eternal periodic universe

 

 

 

The branes are attracted to each other via gravity, the energy release of contact pushes them apart, gravity eventually pulls them back together...

 

 

 

 

To answer on “How did everything really begin” is desirable to answer previously on: What is the everything? What is “begin”? And so – what is the “time”? In reality the everything is an absolutely infinite Set “Information”, which exists always, “in absolutely long time”; and where all has happened absolutely long

time ago.

If more specifically, our Universe exists and evolves in absolutely long time – as well as it has evolved absolutely long time ago. At that our Universe is only infinitesimal – though a huge enough for humans - (dynamical, evolving) informational subset of the Set; there are possible an

infinite number of other “Universes” in the Set, which are some informational systems also, possibly with another – or the same - logical rules (Nature and society laws) that govern the evolution. There isn’t anything surprising in such a reality; including – in that all universes (an “non-universes”) very possibly interact by some ways.

Our Universe consists of three main subsets “Matter”, “Alive” and (at least human’s) “Consciousness” – something like the human, which consists of material

substances, some rules that make the substances “alive” and the human’s consciousness (the men was made “in the image and likeness of” -?)

. Since the cause and the way of Beginning, as well as all what will happen at the Evolution, was known “absolutely long time ago”, formally there isn’t a problem

– how that was (is, will be); anything, including the fate of any human, every her/his thought was known and is now realizing as always existing scenario.

Though it is interesting to attempt to know this scenario – thus the sciences exist… More see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 Cheers

 

 

I didn't see that assertion in your link...

[Alan McDougall]

The branes are attracted to each other via gravity, the energy release of contact pushes them apart, gravity eventually pulls them back together...

 

 

 

I didn't see that assertion in your link...

 

The M-theory states that strings of energy could grow into larger membranes or branes even up to the size of the universe.

It also goes on to state that these strings need to vibrate in more than three dimensions (six) plus another dimension , namely time.

[Moontanman]

The M-theory states that strings of energy could grow into larger membranes or branes even up to the size of the universe.

It also goes on to state that these strings need to vibrate in more than three dimensions (six) plus another dimension , namely time.

 

It's a hypothesis, it is personally satisfying to me but of course that is meaningless. But it does show that there are other possibilities the proof of course will be in the pudding but nothing doesn't necessarily mean what we call nothing and a brane collision would appear to us to be a point big bang but it wouldn't need inflation or that is my take on it.

 

I have considered time to be the fundamental dimension, the first dimension if you will, the rest we see are built on time. Most ideas seem to place time as something added on after the fact but again it is just my thoughts on the matter and aren't any better than anyone elses.

 

The idea of nothing is difficult to wrap my head around, once you propose nothing you immediately have something, just my take...

Edited June 18, 2013 by Moontanman

[Popcorn Sutton]

I decided that I'm going to go with Krauss' something from nothing hypothesis because that seems to abide by Occams Razor and where my thoughts have been for some time

 

But for a more precise argument as to my reasoning behind supporting Krauss, see my first post on this thread. Basically, time is like a string, and our observable universe is probably confined to this string of time which is being repelled from tge gravitational center, and solidifying at the parameters of this galaxy, thus becoming projected as a part of the hologram, speeding up as it reaches the parameter causing a membrane, but slowing down toward the center where time is being emitted and all matter diverges from nothing.