I like discussing the Origin of the Universe, let's do.

[rdean]

gawd did it

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The Big Bang can't account for where the first singularity came from

The laws that govern the universe cannot be logically assumed to apply outside of it or to its beginning.

Thus the quantum theories and sciences.

 

[G.T.]

What I'm saying is that even if the current universe started with a big bang, who's to say that it hadn't just collapsed on itself from an earlier incarnation, like when maybe when all the black holes suck everything up, they then suck each other up and everything collapses into a singularity that then re-explodes. In which case, the big bang has happened over and over.

I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.

Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.

And I told you there's a consensus there was a beginning, in the scientific comm.

 

[JoLouis]

I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.

Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.

And I told you there's a consensus there was a beginning, in the scientific comm.

So fucking what? They see the BB as the beginning, I'm saying you can't know if the universe had just collapsed on itself then re-exploded, which I think is probable. So they are stating something as a fact that's not knowable, total bs if you ask me.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What I'm saying is that even if the current universe started with a big bang, who's to say that it hadn't just collapsed on itself from an earlier incarnation, like when maybe when all the black holes suck everything up, they then suck each other up and everything collapses into a singularity that then re-explodes. In which case, the big bang has happened over and over.

I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.

Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.

Going to have to disagree with this...there's scientific data that points to another conclusion.

 

[FA_Q2]

I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.

Well, there is the fact that with all the natural laws coming into existence at the time of the big bang that would include time as well. Without time as a factor, beginning and end are virtually meaningless. Any beginning to the universe spirals into conjecture and religion as science is unable to explain anything before natural laws exist. One reason why I said that was for the religious to explain earlier. It is outside the realm of science. I rather think much of the big bang theory is conjecture as well considering there is no real evidence for 90% of what is claimed. The only thing big bang claims that has any real evidence is that all matter was compressed into a single singularity.


I wonder how this fits into physics today as well. I have heard that a singularity within a black hole has infinite density. If that is true, then what is the difference between that singularity and the one that started the big bang. Infinite density is infinite mass. Then again, where is the infinite gravity that should be coming from this infinite mass. I kind of take issue with current theories on black holes if you did not notice.

If it's within a singularity, and within a black-hole, it being "within" something leads me to believe that it's the opposite of "infinite;" although, if it's going to continuously expand for.....forever, I guesso. *shrug*

I do take issue with your stating natural laws didn't exist prior. That'd be a theory, not a fact. But anyways, I'm neither for n'or against big bang theory but regardless of that, it doesn't allude to a beginning itself, either.

Apologies, I was not attempting to state it as fact. It is a basic tenement of big bang theory and that was what I was pointing out since we were on the subject. If you ascribe to big bank then that is the current take on the beginning of the universe.

Separate, has anyone here read Enders Game by Orson Scott Card? That has a very articulate beginning concept behind it as well as the concept of the mind that you were getting into earlier.

 

[FA_Q2]

And also the converse to that. Meaning, it's not necessary that they DON'T apply.

There is no reason to believe they do, as there is no reason to believe that whatever may lie 'outside' this universe resembles the universe. What evidence is there that a singularity can occur within the universe that can expand into another universe? There is none. The most reasonable conclusion is that whatever might apply outside the universe is most likely nothing like the laws of physics within, as the events that seem to have occurred to create the universe appear impossible within it.

There's no reason to assume they don't unless you accept just another "theory" of how the universe began. They could be the laws of all existence, not of just the Universe, we don't know. You're basing these assumptions on existing theories of how the Universe came to be, but there's no factual answer to that at all. This could be the only universe, too, everything about a multi-verse is theory at this point.

Actually, there is a small piece of info that would point to the idea that the laws did not exist until after the Big Bang: the Big Bang is not possible within the laws of physics as we know it. If all matter were compressed into a singularity, there is no possible way in our current understanding of the universe that it exploded. Gravity at that point would be the far grater force.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

There is no reason to believe they do, as there is no reason to believe that whatever may lie 'outside' this universe resembles the universe. What evidence is there that a singularity can occur within the universe that can expand into another universe? There is none. The most reasonable conclusion is that whatever might apply outside the universe is most likely nothing like the laws of physics within, as the events that seem to have occurred to create the universe appear impossible within it.

There's no reason to assume they don't unless you accept just another "theory" of how the universe began. They could be the laws of all existence, not of just the Universe, we don't know. You're basing these assumptions on existing theories of how the Universe came to be, but there's no factual answer to that at all. This could be the only universe, too, everything about a multi-verse is theory at this point.

Actually, there is a small piece of info that would point to the idea that the laws did not exist until after the Big Bang: the Big Bang is not possible within the laws of physics as we know it. If all matter were compressed into a singularity, there is no possible way in our current understanding of the universe that it exploded. Gravity at that point would be the far grater force.

Firstly...we don't yet have a complete grasp of physics, all of it's laws and how they interact with oneanother...secondly...what theory says the Universe started out as a singularity as we understand them today?

 

[JoLouis]

I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.

Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.

Going to have to disagree with this...there's scientific data that points to another conclusion.

like what conclusion?????????

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.

Going to have to disagree with this...there's scientific data that points to another conclusion.

like what conclusion?????????

Like the conclusion that the galaxies are travelling away from a single point in all directions at the speed of light.

 

[FA_Q2]

There's no reason to assume they don't unless you accept just another "theory" of how the universe began. They could be the laws of all existence, not of just the Universe, we don't know. You're basing these assumptions on existing theories of how the Universe came to be, but there's no factual answer to that at all. This could be the only universe, too, everything about a multi-verse is theory at this point.

Actually, there is a small piece of info that would point to the idea that the laws did not exist until after the Big Bang: the Big Bang is not possible within the laws of physics as we know it. If all matter were compressed into a singularity, there is no possible way in our current understanding of the universe that it exploded. Gravity at that point would be the far grater force.

Firstly...we don't yet have a complete grasp of physics, all of it's laws and how they interact with oneanother...secondly...what theory says the Universe started out as a singularity as we understand them today?

We will never have a complete understanding. The Big Bang Theory. I never said that it was a singularity as we understand it. It could not be because the laws of physics did not exist. The big bang theory does state that all matter was in one place at some time and that would be somewhat like a singularity though with a lot more matter.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Actually, there is a small piece of info that would point to the idea that the laws did not exist until after the Big Bang: the Big Bang is not possible within the laws of physics as we know it. If all matter were compressed into a singularity, there is no possible way in our current understanding of the universe that it exploded. Gravity at that point would be the far grater force.

Firstly...we don't yet have a complete grasp of physics, all of it's laws and how they interact with oneanother...secondly...what theory says the Universe started out as a singularity as we understand them today?

We will never have a complete understanding. The Big Bang Theory. I never said that it was a singularity as we understand it. It could not be because the laws of physics did not exist. The big bang theory does state that all matter was in one place at some time and that would be somewhat like a singularity though with a lot more matter.

Not necessarily....the large collider in Europe is now attempting to prove a theory that not only shows the make up of atoms but that entirely new particles can be created.

 

[JoLouis]

Going to have to disagree with this...there's scientific data that points to another conclusion.

like what conclusion?????????

Like the conclusion that the galaxies are travelling away from a single point in all directions at the speed of light.

Ya, so?

 

[rikules]

What is your theory?

I have several different things pulling my brain one way or another(crack excluded), perhaps they could all be related.

I feel there's something with energy and our brain's abilities that we all don't know. I enjoy "attempting" to have lucid dreams, but they don't always happen. When they do, it can be magical but I haven't reached a point where I become "conscious" within my dream, i.e. aware I'm in a dream, and in total control. You can youtube people who have done this and their descriptions are awesome.

So there's the electo-magnetic connection I think there's something to that, and life, but then I am anti-Religion. I'm neither anti nor pro creator; however. Science has come a long way, but it cannot get my head around the whole "something came from nothing" thing.

These are just my initial thoughts, whoever likes to discuss these things jump on in!!

my theory;

the big bang theory


long long ago
the universe was completely empty

except for 2 beings

in fact

not just "beings"

but "GODS"

there names were
godsthw092t6je,fmli3jfjhf786380klllfs,m;,bfgoi8yunkjrthntlr8ob4f,gkjhd;lr6iyu4o;iyup690yup4y0p96yu49ypu3409ye56y5l;6o;ltyogh.nm .h,,.bn,n;l6phj.kjjfhbn gythutoit

and

satanjk9783rh;r-=03jjjj-kkjlgd0984l;fdfjmn,bs.dbp0809g b. ,fgmblkjrbhno8ug0oirtjlkfjhlfkjhnl.o8yu4oumoly94uyp049yunrlijflmkj,mnb .kriu80909kjbl.ijg


which
though easy enough for gods to say

took a long time
so they just called each other.....

god
and
satan

god and satan had the hots for each other....

so they decided to make love

now
gods
being gods
can make love for a VERY LONG TIME!

billions of years to you and me....

so
for billions of years
they had foreplay

until finally

they reached the point of climax.....

they both "came" at the same time....

sperm and fluids and juices shot out everywhere!

and in that mess of fluids was created our universe!


god and satan cuddled for awhile after they had climaxed

while civilizations came and went in the mess of fluids....

and finally
god said...."i'm not sleeping in that wet spot!"

so satan went to the bathroom....

and now.....
we all await.....

the COMING of the GREAT WHITE TOWEL!

when satan returns with the Great White Towel he will wipe up that wet spot....

and that will be the end of our universe

i'm praying he stops in the kitchen for a late night snack first

 

[THE LIGHT]

The universe doesn't come from anywhere, it has always existed.

Now THAT is a nice fairy tale.

 

[JoLouis]

The universe doesn't come from anywhere, it has always existed.

Now THAT is a nice fairy tale.

And you can prove otherwise?