Zone1 Origins

[ding]

We search for intelligent life outside of our planet because talking with an alien amoeba would be a waste of time.

We search for extraterrestrial intelligence because the universe is finely tuned to produce intelligence.

 

[Cougarbear]

Very interesting! It makes me think that an anthropomorphic God is not that farfetched, especially if human beings are a singularity in the universe. Maybe Joseph Smith was right?

Here’s a video for atheists. But I also believe this is the answer for creedal Christians as well.

 

[buttercup]

Just another great mystery. Too many to ponder let alone solve.

It's not a mystery. God is eternal.

Is it hard for us mere mortals to understand? Yes. Absolutely. But it's not a mystery, at least to those of us who believe the biblical worldview.

 

[toobfreak]

This video brings up some fascinating points to consider, for believers and for non-believers alike.

Look, the video gets a few things right and wrong:

1. God is God. God is without time or creation. Only things in this phenomenal universe have a beginning and an end.
2. God has always been creating. Ours is but one of innumerable universes and God is creating in all of them. It is folly to think that nothing happened before we came along.
3. God is ultimately unknowable to us because we are finite and God is infinite and unbounded.
4. This is not just a matter for the Bible but for all religions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not what the data shows

Irrelevant, given the incredibly tiny sample.

 

[ding]

Irrelevant, given the incredibly tiny sample.

What are you talking about a tiny sample? Per e=mc^2 the radiation left over from the big bang is equivalent to 2 billion times the mass of the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What are you talking about a tiny sample?

The data we have collected versus all the information that has or will exist.

So no. You can't conclude the universe has not always existed from the repatively tiny sample of data we have actually collected.

You can say you hope it is or isn't true, but thats the extent of your knowledge and authority, same for everyone else.

 

[ding]

The data we have collected versus all the information that has or will exist.

So no. You can't conclude the universe has not always existed from the repatively tiny sample of data we have actually collected.

You can say you hope it is or isn't true, but thats the extent of your knowledge and authority, same for everyone else.

What's your explanation for the CMB? Because it's the physical evidence that we do have and it is massive.

 

[ding]

So no. You can't conclude the universe has not always existed from the repatively tiny sample of data we have actually collected.

What does the mainstream science say?

Mainstream science overwhelmingly supports the Big Bang as the leading model, viewing it as a well-tested theory explaining the universe's expansion from a hot, dense state, backed by key evidence like Hubble's Law, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and light element abundances. While refinements occur, like understanding inflation, the core Big Bang framework is robust and consistent with observations.

Key Evidence Supporting the Big Bang:

1. Hubble's Law (Cosmic Expansion): Distant galaxies are moving away from us, and the farther they are, the faster they recede, indicating the universe is expanding from a common, denser past.
2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): This faint afterglow of the early universe's heat, detected uniformly across the sky, shows the universe cooled from a plasma to neutral gas, matching predictions.
3. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN): The observed proportions of light elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium) perfectly match predictions for a universe that was once incredibly hot and dense.

Current Scientific Standing:

• Prevailing Model: The Big Bang theory, often described as the Lambda-CDM model (incorporating dark energy and dark matter), is the standard framework for cosmology.
• Refinement, Not Rejection: Scientists continue to refine details, such as the very first moments (inflation) and the "dark ages," but the core concept remains strong.
• Ongoing Testing: New observations from telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continue to provide data that either supports or helps refine the model, but don't disprove it.

 

[ding]

The data we have collected versus all the information that has or will exist.

So no. You can't conclude the universe has not always existed from the repatively tiny sample of data we have actually collected.

You can say you hope it is or isn't true, but thats the extent of your knowledge and authority, same for everyone else.

Mainstream science posits the Big Bang should have created nearly equal matter and antimatter, but a tiny asymmetry (perhaps 1 in a billion) allowed some matter to survive as the rest annihilated into energy, explaining our matter-dominated universe, a phenomenon called the baryon asymmetry problem, which physicists are actively researching through particle physics (like at CERN) to find the physics beyond the Standard Model that caused this crucial imbalance.

Key Points:

• Equal Start: The Big Bang theory predicts near-equal creation of matter and antimatter particles.
• Annihilation: When matter and antimatter meet, they destroy each other, releasing energy.
• The Imbalance: Today's universe is almost entirely matter, meaning a minuscule excess of matter (about one extra particle per billion particle-antiparticle pairs) must have survived.
• The Mystery: This slight difference, the matter-antimatter asymmetry, is one of physics' biggest puzzles; the Standard Model doesn't fully explain it.
• Ongoing Research: Experiments, particularly at facilities like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), look for subtle differences in how matter and antimatter behave (CP violation) to find new physics that accounts for this imbalance.

In essence: The universe did start with almost equal parts, but a tiny bit more matter than antimatter escaped annihilation, allowing stars, planets, and us to exist, a phenomenon scientists are still working to fully understand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's your explanation for the CMB?

Irrelevant, any explanation can still be true, in an infinite universe. The beginning of our obelservable timeliness is only that.

 

[ding]

Irrelevant, any explanation can still be true, in an infinite universe. The beginning of our obelservable timeliness is only that.

According to mainstream science the CMB is not irrelevant as it is literally the reason they believe the universe was created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

Is e=mc^2 irrelevant too? Because that's how they know how much matter and anti-matter there was, e=mc^2

 

[ding]

any explanation can still be true, in an infinite universe.

No. It can't. And that's why you can't explain the CMB in an infinite universe. There is literally no explanation. The CMB can only be explained by matter annihilating anti-matter, e=mc^2

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ccording to mainstream science the CMB is not irrelevant as it is literally the reason they believe the universe was created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.

I obviously didnt mean it is irrelevant knowledge, in general. I mean it does not preclude an infinite universe.

I'm not doing the time wasting dance with you, sorry.

 

[ding]

I obviously didnt mean it is irrelevant knowledge, in general.

I'm not doing the time wasting dance with you, sorry.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I never feel like I am wasting my time discussing what science is telling us. Even when I am discussing it with people who are biased against it because it offends their worldviews.

 

[Stryder50]

What does the mainstream science say?

Mainstream science overwhelmingly supports the Big Bang as the leading model, viewing it as a well-tested theory explaining the universe's expansion from a hot, dense state, backed by key evidence like Hubble's Law, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and light element abundances. While refinements occur, like understanding inflation, the core Big Bang framework is robust and consistent with observations.

Key Evidence Supporting the Big Bang:

1. Hubble's Law (Cosmic Expansion): Distant galaxies are moving away from us, and the farther they are, the faster they recede, indicating the universe is expanding from a common, denser past.
2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): This faint afterglow of the early universe's heat, detected uniformly across the sky, shows the universe cooled from a plasma to neutral gas, matching predictions.
3. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN): The observed proportions of light elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium) perfectly match predictions for a universe that was once incredibly hot and dense.

Current Scientific Standing:

• Prevailing Model: The Big Bang theory, often described as the Lambda-CDM model (incorporating dark energy and dark matter), is the standard framework for cosmology.
• Refinement, Not Rejection: Scientists continue to refine details, such as the very first moments (inflation) and the "dark ages," but the core concept remains strong.
• Ongoing Testing: New observations from telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continue to provide data that either supports or helps refine the model, but don't disprove it.

But what existed before that earlier hot dense state of the Universe ?

Is it possible that some time in the future the current expansion starts to collapse once a threshold of matter has converted to energy ?

Might we be looking at a perpetual; cycle of Big Bang followed by Big Collapse, repeat ... ?

 

[ding]

But what existed before that earlier hot dense state of the Universe ?

Is it possible that some time in the future the current expansion starts to collapse once a threshold of matter has converted to energy ?

Might we be looking at a perpetual; cycle of Big Bang followed by Big Collapse, repeat ... ?

Current thinking is that the universe is expanding too fast for a collapse and that the universe began ~14 million years ago not being created from existing matter. The CMB is the physical evidence for this belief. Here's the best site I have found for the science:

The Early Universe

You can also google, "was the universe created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?" and follow those links as well. Or ask, "why do scientists believe the universe was created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?" as well.

 

[Stryder50]

Current thinking is that the universe is expanding too fast for a collapse and that the universe began ~14 million years ago not being created from existing matter. The CMB is the physical evidence for this belief. Here's the best site I have found for the science:

The Early Universe

You can also google, "was the universe created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?" and follow those links as well. Or ask, "why do scientists believe the universe was created from nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?" as well.

Maybe a metaphysical or philosophic question, that first one, which you didn't answer.

What existed ~15-16 billion years ago ?
OR
Where did the substance that made the Universe come from ?

Thanks for the links BTW.

 

[ding]

Maybe a metaphysical or philosophic question, that first one, which you didn't answer.

What existed ~15-16 billion years ago ?
OR
Where did the substance that made the Universe come from ?

Thanks for the links BTW.

Definitely the realm of philosophy. I believe we exist in the mind of God. That everything is information and the only thing that is "real" so to speak is time itself. Which is a change in how I used to think which was that time didn't exist at all. That time was just a convenient measure to demarcate the expansion of the universe.

The nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which the universe was created from came from paired particle production which is explained in the link I provided.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did the substance that made the Universe come from ?

Nobody knows.