Originally posted by KellyJay…The Big Bang was not the start, the start was when whatever was there
The Big Bang was not the start, the start was when whatever was there
that blew up came into being and that was what, when, why, and how?
Kelly
that blew up came into being and that was WHAT, WHEN, WHY, and HOW?
…(my emphasis)
1, “WHAT” it was is something like (but not quite?) a singularity but containing a vast amount of energy. I am not an expert on this so I cannot elaborate.
2, the “WHEN” is about 13.73 billion years ago, with an uncertainty of about 120 million years. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe )
3, I assume that the “WHY” presumes an intelligence behind it? -if so, given the complete absence of evidence for such an intelligence, I would guess that there probability of there even being a reason “WHY” to be vanishingly small.
4, I assume that the “HOW” presumes cause and effect. But for something to cause an effect, that cause must have come before that effect. Given the fact that there was no “before” the big bang, there was no “cause” for it and thus there is no “HOW”
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonActually, 14.7 bil not 13.7. But the idea of what was before ties into how we define time. In some theories, our universe popped out like a boil on someones skin, out of another parent universe so in that world view there certainly WAS a time before, but it still goes without saying that OUR particular time frame started at the beginning of the BB. I see it more like resetting of a master clock. That which begat the BB would have to have had it's own time frame assuming the parent/child theory of the universe is correct. Current science is just not powerful enough to be able to stand back and see the bigger picture and so they just say there WAS no before because they can't come up with anything that would say what was 'before'. I put that in quotes because we realize our own time frame started at the BB, regardless of what started this event.
[b]…The Big Bang was not the start, the start was when whatever was there
that blew up came into being and that was WHAT, WHEN, WHY, and HOW?
…(my emphasis)
1, “WHAT” it was is something like (but not quite?) a singularity but containing a vast amount of energy. I am not an expert on this so I cannot elaborate.
2, the “WHEN” is abou ...[text shortened]... that there was no “before” the big bang, there was no “cause” for it and thus there is no “HOW”[/b]
It seems logical to me the idea of the parent/child universe. That theory or conjecture, take your pick🙂 also implies the parent universe came from yet another parent universe which rightly boggles the mind.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton1. Yes, where did the Singularity come from which was my question.
[b]…The Big Bang was not the start, the start was when whatever was there
that blew up came into being and that was WHAT, WHEN, WHY, and HOW?
…(my emphasis)
1, “WHAT” it was is something like (but not quite?) a singularity but containing a vast amount of energy. I am not an expert on this so I cannot elaborate.
2, the “WHEN” is abou ...[text shortened]... that there was no “before” the big bang, there was no “cause” for it and thus there is no “HOW”[/b]
2. So you say, but that is the least important part of all questios.
3. Why is a great question, it presumes nothing but begs an answer
4. Yes, cause and effect would be nice to know!
Can a no cause effect happen in nothing let along anywhere else?
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseBoggles the mind, seems more like a escape from reality to me.
Actually, 14.7 bil not 13.7. But the idea of what was before ties into how we define time. In some theories, our universe popped out like a boil on someones skin, out of another parent universe so in that world view there certainly WAS a time before, but it still goes without saying that OUR particular time frame started at the beginning of the BB. I see it ...[text shortened]... es the parent universe came from yet another parent universe which rightly boggles the mind.
It only pushes off the question to something else unknowable, may
as well say God did it.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWe usually say today that the age of universe is about 13.7 billion of years (not 14.7 as sonhouse mentionned), with an uncertainty of +/- 200 milion of years.
2, the “WHEN” is about 13.73 billion years ago, with an uncertainty of about 120 million years. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe )
Well, I never say that. I say that "the latest meausrement is abour 14 billion of years" in my lectures. People ask me, "why do you say *the latest*"?
My answer is that it's not the last measurement. Further measurements with new or other methods might give other results.
In the Swedish edition of Wikipedia one can read the following:
"Det finns också nya mätningar (2006), vilka tolkas som att universum skulle vara 15,8 miljarder år gammalt. Den nya dateringen är baserad på mätningar av ljuset från en förmörkelsebinär i galaxen M33. När stjärnorna sett från jorden ligger på linje, blir deras totala ljus svagare. Genom att mäta dessa variationer kan astronomerna avgöra avståndet till dem. Det visar att M33 ligger längre bort än man trodde, och att universum därför också är äldre än man först trodde [1]."
The mainpart says that in new measurements from 2006, based from eclipsing binaries in M33 galaxy, they found out that the universe is 15.8 billion of years. The link leads to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?doi=10.1007%2Fs10509-006-9112-1 and is a sumary from a rather technical paper not intended for amateurs.
So I was right to say 'the latest measurement' instead of 'the last one'. We allways have to revise facts, that's the nature of science, not to take anything for granted, ever.
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, it says the universe is more unimaginable than even you and your god could imagine. It makes room for the idea the universe is infinite, the greater universe that is, even our parent universe is finite but the whole system implies an infinite system that goes back in time googles of years. This of course makes it kind of difficult for a god to have just waved a tentacle and just wished it into place.
Boggles the mind, seems more like a escape from reality to me.
It only pushes off the question to something else unknowable, may
as well say God did it.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasAre you suggesting the age of the universe is after the big bang,
We usually say today that the age of universe is about 13.7 billion of years (not 14.7 as sonhouse mentionned), with an uncertainty of +/- 200 milion of years.
Well, I never say that. I say that "the latest meausrement is abour 14 billion of years" in my lectures. People ask me, "why do you say *the latest*"?
My answer is that it's not the last measu ...[text shortened]... revise facts, that's the nature of science, not to take anything for granted, ever.
or when the singularity first came into being? I’d have to say the
beginning was at the start of the singularity not at the bang,
because all that is, is suppose to be in the singularity. So how do
you know when that came into being? While we are at it, how
do you know how that came into being, why did it come into
being, you know all the important questions?
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseYou know enough about the universe to say it is beyond God, I actually
No, it says the universe is more unimaginable than even you and your god could imagine. It makes room for the idea the universe is infinite, the greater universe that is, even our parent universe is finite but the whole system implies an infinite system that goes back in time googles of years. This of course makes it kind of difficult for a god to have just waved a tentacle and just wished it into place.
believe God is beyond you and the universe is nothing to Him.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou do too take things for granted, you assume evolution is the
We usually say today that the age of universe is about 13.7 billion of years (not 14.7 as sonhouse mentionned), with an uncertainty of +/- 200 milion of years.
Well, I never say that. I say that "the latest meausrement is abour 14 billion of years" in my lectures. People ask me, "why do you say *the latest*"?
My answer is that it's not the last measu ...[text shortened]... revise facts, that's the nature of science, not to take anything for granted, ever.
answer for the formation of the eye don't you?
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouse…Current science is just not powerful enough to be able to stand back and see the bigger picture …
Actually, 14.7 bil not 13.7. But the idea of what was before ties into how we define time. In some theories, our universe popped out like a boil on someones skin, out of another parent universe so in that world view there certainly WAS a time before, but it still goes without saying that OUR particular time frame started at the beginning of the BB. I see it ...[text shortened]... es the parent universe came from yet another parent universe which rightly boggles the mind.
Agreed. -although this assumes there is a “bigger picture” to see! What if our universe IS the “biggest picture” there is and so there is no “bigger picture” than the universe?
-don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there IS NO “bigger picture”! -that would be just speculation on my part. I certainly would not totally dismiss the idea that there could be “other” universes. But IF there is no “bigger picture” than the universe then it certainly would not be correct to say that our universe “came” from something else because there would be nothing for it to “come from” -not even “nothingness“! it would have merely just existed at that first point in time and there merely was no “before” that point in time and not even in some kind of “higher reality“.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat I find abhorrent about the idea of our universe coming into being from absolutely nothing is this: It makes no sense whatsoever for this to have happened. It totally flies in the face of fundamental causality. So it goes, no time, no time, no time, no time, no time, whoops, BB, now there is time? If you think that, then it is not such a big stretch to just conjure up a god to have done it. I think there was something 'before', but not OUR before, our time clearly started at the BB, but I firmly believe it came from something not having to do with a god and not having to do with just popping up out of total nothingness. I think cosmologists can answer this question in the next few decades. Of course for now what I think is total speculation, freely admitted but my gut feeling says it did not start from total nothingness but came from some 'previous' cause.
[b]…Current science is just not powerful enough to be able to stand back and see the bigger picture …
Agreed. -although this assumes there is a “bigger picture” to see! What if our universe IS the “biggest picture” there is and so there is no “bigger picture” than the universe?
-don’t get me wrong, I am not saying there IS NO “bigger pictu ...[text shortened]... d there merely was no “before” that point in time and not even in some kind of “higher reality“.[/b]
For one thing, it would fly in the face of conservation of energy, no energy, no energy, no energy, BOOM now there is energy? I don't think so.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…1. Yes, where did the Singularity come FROM which was my question. …(my emphasis)
1. Yes, where did the Singularity come from which was my question.
2. So you say, but that is the least important part of all questios.
3. Why is a great question, it presumes nothing but begs an answer
4. Yes, cause and effect would be nice to know!
Can a no cause effect happen in nothing let along anywhere else?
Kelly
Our universe (or the “singularity&rdquo😉 didn’t ”COME” from anything (or even "nothing"!). To “COME” from, there would have to be something existing “before” the universe for that universe to “COME” from. But, as the universe was the beginning of time, there was no “before” for that something to exist in and thus the universe couldn’t have “COME” from anything.
…Can a no cause EFFECT happen in NOTHING let along anywhere else? …(my emphasis)
I think there is three flaws in that statement:
1, the big bang was not a “no cause EFFECT” because it wasn’t an “EFFECT”. Nobody is claiming it was.
2, a “no cause EFFECT” is a logical contradiction in terms because if an event has no cause then, by definition of the word “EFFECT”, it cannot be an “EFFECT”. Such events exist even today: if you study quantum physics, you would find out that there are certain quantum events that are not “effects” because there was no “cause” for the way the event developed. This comes from the randomness in certain quantum effects.
3, the big bang theory doesn’t say the universe came from “NOTHING” and nor does it imply this. If the universe “came from nothing” then exactly at what point in time did his “nothing” exist? -(remember; there was no “before” the big bang)
Originally posted by sonhouseOne thing I take for granded: the owners of this site would become by far the richest on Earth sould they publish a book series with the whole "scientific evidence" provided by our creationist friends over here; just imagine the reaction of the scientific community over that series!
What I find abhorrent about the idea of our universe coming into being from absolutely nothing is this: It makes no sense whatsoever for this to have happened. It totally flies in the face of fundamental causality. So it goes, no time, no time, no time, no time, no time, whoops, BB, now there is time? If you think that, then it is not such a big stretch to ...[text shortened]... ion of energy, no energy, no energy, no energy, BOOM now there is energy? I don't think so.
Hey Phil dude! I think I deserve a year's subscription for free for my idea! You could spent a fortune in order to find them and publish such bright ideas and scientific evidence in case we miserable atheists would just enjoy the royal game here at RHP instead of debating 😀
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse…What I find abhorrent about the idea of our universe coming into being from absolutely nothing is this: .…
What I find abhorrent about the idea of our universe coming into being from absolutely nothing is this: It makes no sense whatsoever for this to have happened. It totally flies in the face of fundamental causality. So it goes, no time, no time, no time, no time, no time, whoops, BB, now there is time? If you think that, then it is not such a big stretch to ion of energy, no energy, no energy, no energy, BOOM now there is energy? I don't think so.
The universe didn’t came from “nothing” nor “something” -it “didn’t come” but merely existed at the first point in time without there being a “before”.
…it totally flies in the face of fundamental causality.. ......
Of course! That is because it had no “cause”.
…. So it goes, no time, no time, no time, no time, no time, whoops, BB, now there is time?….
“…no time, no time, no time…” -but exactly at what points in time was there “no time”?
…I think there was something 'before', but not OUR before, our time clearly started at the BB,. …
What is the premise for you belief that there was some other kind of “before” other than OUR “before“?
Is it because of your ‘gut feeling’ the universe must have a “cause”? -if so, what is the cause of you ‘gut feeling’ that the universe must have a “cause”? (admittedly, this is a hard question and I would find it hard to answer such a question on the causes of MY “gut feelings&rdquo😉
…but I firmly believe it came FROM something not having to do with a god and not having to do with just popping up out of total nothingness.
… (my emphasis)
I agree! that is because it didn’t “came FROM”.
…For one thing, it would fly in the face of conservation of energy, no energy, no energy, no energy, BOOM now there is energy? I don't think so.. ...
Agreed! That is because there was no points in time when there was “no energy, no energy, no energy” because there was no “before” thus the conservation of energy was never violated! (although it is still a mystery of why the universe has so much of it)
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHi AH dude;
[b]…What I find abhorrent about the idea of our universe coming into being from absolutely nothing is this: .…
The universe didn’t came from “nothing” nor “something” -it “didn’t come” but merely existed at the first point in time without there being a “before”.
…it totally flies in the face of fundamental causality.. ......
Of c ...[text shortened]... no energy” because there was no “before” thus the conservation of energy was never violated![/b]
Now they are ready at CERN to proceed to an experiment of high importance conducted by prof. Maria Spiropoulos and her team, providing conditions similar to the ones after a bilionsec after the big bang. Keep in mind that the centre of energy in Fernilab has ascended from 1,2 to 2 and now to 14, so we are talking about 7 times more energy in the centre of the mass! We will wait and we will see. This process I consider amazing. And FF will be high to the sky -if he does not already know about this experiment🙂