Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

[hadit]

But if it is a universe there is no "outside the universe," if it is the universe then it is everything. It always has to come back to energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And as you know the energy of motion contains inertial mass which according to Special Relativity is indistinguishable from gravitational mass.

Wrong. Your very first sentence is wrong my brother.

You’re like a tardigrade who can only see what’s inside your drop of water. Your observable universe is all you can see but there’s more beyond. Don’t be ignorant and arrogant at the same time

And the rest of your comment is ramblings I don’t even understand.

Energy can’t be created? Are you sure about that?

There’s so much you don’t know but act like what you think is fact. It’s not

It is a PROVEN by a repeatable experimental FACT that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, AKA The First Law of Thermodynamics.

And inertial mass equaling gravitational mass is Einstein's "principal of equivalence" the very foundation of relativity.

Wow that’s deep. It can be transformed not created. So the electricity coming to my house isn’t being created at the electric company and sent to me? I’m not smart enough to fully understand without further explanation. Cool shit.

That's right, the electricity coming to your house is not "created," it is generated from the energy already existing and stored in the fuel used to run the turbines.

But doesn’t a machine have to create it?

Seems like they are creating something from nothing.

Where can I get some electricity?

No. The energy is stored in the fuel. Burning the fuel releases that energy, which is then used to generate electricity. You want some, get a generator and start cranking. If you do that, you're releasing the energy stored in your muscles, which then is used to generate electricity.

 

[zaangalewa]

Of course. Motion exists even at absolute zero.

Sorry but the very definition of absolute zero is the temperature at which ALL motion stops!

What is absolute zero? | Cool Cosmos
What is absolute zero?
Absolute zero is the lowest temperature possible. At a temperature of absolute zero there is no motion and no heat. Absolute zero occurs at a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin, or -273.15 degrees Celsius, or at -460 degrees Fahrenheit.

Due to the uncertainty principle, absolute zero cannot be achieved because those pesky little electrons keep jumping around.

This fluctuations of particles in the vacuum are only virtual: A particle and its anti-particle start to exist and to destroy each other again. This is "zero". As far as I know only the event horizon of a black hole is able to separate such a particle from its anti-particle. This is called Hawking-radiation: One of both falls into the black hole and the other goes to another place. The energy for this process comes from the black hole in this case. The black hole "evaporates" (=it loses energy).

Just remember

An atheist likes to speak. I remember lots of such soliloquies'.

there is so much we don't know. Don't assume you know.

?

And do you think something you know proves something? If so what?

Not everything is relative - what also the theory of relativity never said! It exist for example a highest signal speed (the lightspeed in vacuum) and it exists for example a coldest (lowest) temperature.

New discoveries are causing astronomers to question if the Big Bang really happened,

Science fiction is not science. Who really says the universe is not expanding so this thought ends in a point, where started to expand our universe about 13.8 billion ago. Howelse to think? Why? With what kind of plausibility?

and using the latest science, they investigate if it wasn't just the start of our universe but many mysterious multiverses.

I do not have any problem with the idea multiverses - because exclusivelly only spirItualism is able to connect this universes with our universe here. A fascinating idea.

Did the Big Bang Really Happen? | How the Universe Works

I hope I wil later find the time to take a look at this video. - No chance: shows the message this video is not existing in my region.

This is a great episode. It talks about what we know, what new discoveries we've recently made, and how we are now starting to wonder if there is more out there beyond our observable universe.

What we don't know? What's outside our observable universe?

There is no outside.

What caused the big bang? What was before our universe.

There is no before.

A lot of the things we assume are wrong. Or might be wrong. We need the next Einstein to come along and figure all this out for us.

“Do you know what Albert Einstein's definition of insanity was?"
"No."
"Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Christian Cantrell

Astronomers say the Boomerang Nebula is the coldestknown object in the universe.

Do they?

They've learned that its temperature is one degree Kelvin (minus 458 degrees Fahrenheit). That's even colder than the faint afterglow of the Big Bang, which is the natural background temperature of space: colder than space itself.

In laboratories on planet Earth - that's the third planet of the solar system - Wolfgang Ketterle cooled sodium atoms at the MIT down to 1 billionth of a degree Kelvin.

They think this coldest place in the universe might be where another universe collided with ours.

That's a joke now, isn't it? For sure it's not Occams razor. Wherein - except "nothing" - exist parallel universes, which might have totally different natural laws? How are two universes able to collide without to destroy each other for example beause of the differences in the height of the vacuum energy? What for heavens sake means "two universes collide"?

Oh by the way: It has something to do with gas, which moves with 600.000 km/h, what causes the very deep temperature of the boomerang nebula of 1°K.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's a joke now, isn't it? For sure it's not Occams razor.

If you are going to make such a claim, then go ahead and follow it up with your "simpler explanation". And then we can scrutinize it.

 

[james bond]

without space you cannot have time.

Actually it is without motion you can't have time.

Sorry, no. Better think again. Motion was created by the expansion of space. Space is motion. Motion is energy. It takes energy to expand space. All energy is in motion. Without space in motion, there is no vector of time. Before the expansion of space, therre could be no motion, therefore, no time.

Therefore motion can exist in the contraction of the universe also. Again only kinetic energy is the energy of motion. Potential energy is for example the energy of position.

I thought you would go this route that one came after the other. You did not even list all the pieces of the matrix. My first impression of your thinking is that you do not have all the facts and then start telling others how science works. We are smarter than that and smarter than you, so want to get all the pieces defined first. What we are finding is that they are all interconnected. They all have to be in place for any of them to work. Now, you may have an argument based on what I have heard so far once these because I only presented the creation side with God as the force. Otherwise, I don't think we'll get too far and we are discussing things on different levels.

 

[edthecynic]

But if it is a universe there is no "outside the universe," if it is the universe then it is everything. It always has to come back to energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And as you know the energy of motion contains inertial mass which according to Special Relativity is indistinguishable from gravitational mass.

Wrong. Your very first sentence is wrong my brother.

You’re like a tardigrade who can only see what’s inside your drop of water. Your observable universe is all you can see but there’s more beyond. Don’t be ignorant and arrogant at the same time

And the rest of your comment is ramblings I don’t even understand.

Energy can’t be created? Are you sure about that?

There’s so much you don’t know but act like what you think is fact. It’s not

It is a PROVEN by a repeatable experimental FACT that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, AKA The First Law of Thermodynamics.

And inertial mass equaling gravitational mass is Einstein's "principal of equivalence" the very foundation of relativity.

Wow that’s deep. It can be transformed not created. So the electricity coming to my house isn’t being created at the electric company and sent to me? I’m not smart enough to fully understand without further explanation. Cool shit.

That's right, the electricity coming to your house is not "created," it is generated from the energy already existing and stored in the fuel used to run the turbines.

But doesn’t a machine have to create it?

Seems like they are creating something from nothing.

Where can I get some electricity?

Energy is NOT created, that would violate the FLoT. The "machine" CONVERTS the energy that already exists from the form that is stored in the fuel to the energy that can be transmitted over power lines.
Get it?

 

[james bond]

Time is a condition of a current event.

Time exists ONLY in terms of motion. Distance = speed X time or transposed time = distance/speed, for example.

Close, but no cigar. Motion exists because of time. We know this from particle-wave theory. Space and time had to come first or there would not be quantum or any particles in motion providing energy and entropy.

Energy exists in 3 THREE forms, Kinetic, Potential and Heat, only kinetic energy is the energy of motion, so energy is NOT dependent on motion.

And again, I repeat time exists ONLY in terms of motion, please show me an equation for time that does not involve motion of some kind.

I do not know where you get your science, but there is more than three types of energy. Also, you started with d = rate x time which is algebra for calculating distance, rate and time problems. Where does energy come into it?

Why don't we start with the following before you go rambling on to try and determine which came first space, time, motion, matter and force? These five are the basics before we get into energy or calculations.

What we want to discuss is the physics of space, time, motion, matter and force. These are the five fundamental manifestations of natural phenomena.

"Physics evolved from Newton's Mechanics which is founded on a Metaphysics of Space and Time, which require the further concepts of the Motion of Matter 'particles' and thus also gravity 'forces' to connect these discrete matter 'particles'. The problem for physics was how are all these things connected."

Time: On the Physics / Metaphysics of Time due to the Wave Motion of Space. The Metaphysics of Space and Motion (not Time)

I think we agree that all of these things are required in the natural world and it leads to energy in the above graph -- 10 Types of Energy and Examples.

Where we will probably disagree is how they came to be? According to God (force), the universe is a matrix of space, time, matter, and motion. All of it has to be existing at the same conflux. It all has to come together or none of it exists. One cannot exist without the other. The entire continuum must have existed simultaneously from the beginning or the universe would not form.

Your STUPID chart leaves out HEAT, the third form of energy. All the other types of energy in your chart are varieties of either kinetic or potential energy, the other 2 FORMS of energy.

Types of Energy - Knowledge Bank - Solar Schools
Forms of energy
There are many different types of energy, which all fall into two primary forms – kinetic and potential. Energy can transform from one type to another, but it can never be destroyed or created.

LMAO. I doubt the chart is stupid as you didn't know all the different energies. Look hard and you'll find heat there. It starts with a 'T.' Like I said in my previous post, I think we are on different levels. I am presenting a college-level academic view and have listed the five fundamental manifestations of natural phenomena. You just presented a partial list and then went right into which came first or what is required for the other to work or exist. Now that is STUPID AF and jumping to conclusions. Your logic is incomplete, has holes in it and yet you tell everyone else that they're wrong or something they presented is wrong .

 

[james bond]

That is not quite true. Try reading these:

Haha. I doubt edthecynic will read anything one presents as he thinks he knows everything already. His fundamentals of science are lacking, so you end up wasting your time reading most of what he has to say as he ignores your links or having things go over his head . Presenting a definition to back up one's argument for example.

 

[edthecynic]

Time exists ONLY in terms of motion. Distance = speed X time or transposed time = distance/speed, for example.

Close, but no cigar. Motion exists because of time. We know this from particle-wave theory. Space and time had to come first or there would not be quantum or any particles in motion providing energy and entropy.

Energy exists in 3 THREE forms, Kinetic, Potential and Heat, only kinetic energy is the energy of motion, so energy is NOT dependent on motion.

And again, I repeat time exists ONLY in terms of motion, please show me an equation for time that does not involve motion of some kind.

I do not know where you get your science, but there is more than three types of energy. Also, you started with d = rate x time which is algebra for calculating distance, rate and time problems. Where does energy come into it?

Why don't we start with the following before you go rambling on to try and determine which came first space, time, motion, matter and force? These five are the basics before we get into energy or calculations.

What we want to discuss is the physics of space, time, motion, matter and force. These are the five fundamental manifestations of natural phenomena.

"Physics evolved from Newton's Mechanics which is founded on a Metaphysics of Space and Time, which require the further concepts of the Motion of Matter 'particles' and thus also gravity 'forces' to connect these discrete matter 'particles'. The problem for physics was how are all these things connected."

Time: On the Physics / Metaphysics of Time due to the Wave Motion of Space. The Metaphysics of Space and Motion (not Time)

I think we agree that all of these things are required in the natural world and it leads to energy in the above graph -- 10 Types of Energy and Examples.

Where we will probably disagree is how they came to be? According to God (force), the universe is a matrix of space, time, matter, and motion. All of it has to be existing at the same conflux. It all has to come together or none of it exists. One cannot exist without the other. The entire continuum must have existed simultaneously from the beginning or the universe would not form.

Your STUPID chart leaves out HEAT, the third form of energy. All the other types of energy in your chart are varieties of either kinetic or potential energy, the other 2 FORMS of energy.

Types of Energy - Knowledge Bank - Solar Schools
Forms of energy
There are many different types of energy, which all fall into two primary forms – kinetic and potential. Energy can transform from one type to another, but it can never be destroyed or created.

LMAO. I doubt the chart is stupid as you didn't know all the different energies. Look hard and you'll find heat there. It starts with a 'T.' Like I said in my previous post, I think we are on different levels. I am presenting a college-level academic view and have listed the five fundamental manifestations of natural phenomena. You just presented a partial list and then went right into which came first or what is required for the other to work or exist. Now that is STUPID AF and jumping to conclusions. Your logic is incomplete, has holes in it and yet you tell everyone else that they're wrong or something they presented is wrong .

Hey idiot, I said FORMS of energy, not TYPES, all TYPES of energy fall into 3 (THREE) FORMS, Kinetic, Potential and Heat, look it up idiot.

 

[zaangalewa]

That's a joke now, isn't it? For sure it's not Occams razor.

If you are going to make such a claim, then go ahead and follow it up with your "simpler explanation". And then we can scrutinize it.

One universe. Why many? As I said : I love the idea of a multiverse - nevertheless science fiction is not science. It needs this giantic universe for our concrete little existence. The natural constants here in this universe are very well balanced, so life is possible here in this universe. We could take a look every second of the lifetime of our universe at other parallel universes - if they would exist and if we could do so - and it could happen we never would find any life there. So the idea "multiverse" - without concrete card - helps not really to explain why in our universe life is possible. The anthropic principle is not as simple as the most atheists and/or materialists seem to think. Even in this universe here we never found any life except terrestrian life. And even on our planet here - the planet with the super-ideal construction, the best of all possible worlds - we have everywhere places with an hostile environment too, which are deadly for higher organisms.

In such a situation the species homo sapiens sapiens US-americanus trusts in a leader, who takes a snow ball and says: "No - the global warming is not existing." And such a species, which lets itselve foolish from such an unbelievable idiot, gives criminal idiots even the might to use nuclear weapons. Mad world - specially if I think about, that we need a much more higher power than only nukes, if we like to survive as a species together with all other sister species and brother species in long term. We have to learn self-control and an immens love for all forms of life, if we like to respect our own crown of evolution and the responsibility in the eyes of god

If we should really destroy this planet here and His living creation, then I would say god would be indeed very generous, if he will throw all mankind only in hell for all eternity and not in a "think bigger" super-hell.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One universe. Why many?

Why not? The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it. You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise. So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.

 

[zaangalewa]

One universe. Why many?

Why not?

First: It is bad behavior to anwer a question with a question. That's a so called "no go" in an academic discussion. Second you asked me why I spoke about "Occams razor". I told you that I love the idea multiverses on spiritual reasons - but why to speak about many universes? Why to use an unproven complexity in natural science, which no one needs for nothing?

The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it.

Mathematics dictates nothing what's real or unreal. Mathematics is only a way how to be able to think in very abstract ways.

You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise.

What?

So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.

Paint whatever picture you like to paint. That's the freedom of fantasy and arts - what's very important too. Tell me the experiment which is able to show that a parallel universe exists. Such an experiment is impossible. So: Ignoramus, ignorabimus! We don't know - we never will know. Whether parallel universes are existing or not is a question of belief and not a question of knowledge.

Unfortunatelly atheists often believe not to believe - and this makes it difficult for them to separate belief and knowledge. The old Christian philosophers as well as the theory of relativity show this universe here came out of nowhere and nowhen. Sure an uncomfortable thought - but we are not able to say more than that.

Our research in physics starts about 2 plank-seconds (plank-times) after the universe started to exist with all its energy, which is now able to be transformed but is not able any longer to be created or to be destroyed. Whether you call this situation of the very first steps of the universe big bang or not is unimportant. For sure the big bang was very little and it was not a bang. And what we see is: the universe expands. If we think backwards in time about this fact then this means the universe was yesterday more little than today. And the day before yesterday it was more little than yesterday ... and so on ... and so on - ... since about 5,000,000,000,000 days was it in this way. But then had happened something what is more than only strange. Suddenly everything appeared and nothing was not any longer.

-----
Im Anfang war das Chaos. Es war ein unendlicher, gähnender Weltenabgrund, nicht hell noch dunkel, nicht warm noch kalt, weder tönend noch stumm. Hätte ein Mensch wie wir sich mit Zauberflügeln durch diesen unermeßlichen Abgrund bewegen können, er hätte mit seinen irdischen Sinnen nichts gesehen, nichts gehört, nichts gefühlt. Dennoch war das Chaos nicht leer! Es war die Heimat aller Götter und Geister, urgewaltiger Wesen, die auf die große Stunde warteten, da die Schöpfung beginnen sollte. Alles, was später entstanden ist und uns heute teils sichtbar, teils unsichtbar umgibt, war schon im Chaos vorhanden: wie ein Keim ruhte es in den erhabenen Gedanken und im tatbereiten Willen der Urgötter. Kämpfe durchwogten das Chaos, wilde Kämpfe - aber ein Menschenwesen von heute, einsam und verloren im grenzenlosen Raum, hätte nichts davon wahrgenommen; denn noch wehte nicht der leiseste Hauch, noch lebte nicht der zarteste Lichtstrahl, noch war nichts vorhanden, woran die Urgötter ihre Kraft erproben und ihre Absichten erweisen konnten, weder Luft noch Feuer, weder Wasser noch Erde. Nirgends herrschte sichtbare Bewegung, nur Totenstille und Finsternis. Auch das begnadete Auge der Seher, das weiter und tiefer blickt als der Sinn gewöhnlicher Menschen, vermochte das Chaos nicht zu durchdringen. Nur bis an seine Schwelle reichte die Rückschau der Weisen und Dichter des Griechenvolkes, und keiner wusste zu sagen, was sich jenseits begab. Was sie aber sahen und kündeten, war dies: Eines Tages habe sich ein belebendes Schimmern und wärmendes Glimmen durch das ganze Chaos verbreitet, unendlich zart: das kam von Eros, dem Gott der himmlischen Liebe, dem ältesten der Götter. Sein keusches Licht belebt noch heute die ganze Schöpfung und bindet ihre Wesen, gute wie böse, untereinander; und so belebte und befruchtete es auch das Chaos, und aus diesem entspross Gaia, die Urmutter der Erde.
-----

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First: It is bad behavior to anwer a question with a question.

Excuse you, i answered your question in my post. The bad behavior is all yours in attempting to dodge my points.

Why to use an unproven complexity in natural science, which no one needs for nothing?

Why to use an unproven complexity in natural science, which no one needs for nothing?

Excuse you, i not only answered that question as well, but also demonstrated why it is very poorly worded and ass backwards wrong in its assumption.

Mathematics dictates nothing what's real or unreal.

Excuse you, mathematics dictates the possibility. Thats now 3 times you have misrepresented me.

Paint whatever picture you like to paint.

Physics and math paint this picture, as i clearly said. That's 4 times.

You know what, you little weasel? Piss off.

 

[james bond]

Close, but no cigar. Motion exists because of time. We know this from particle-wave theory. Space and time had to come first or there would not be quantum or any particles in motion providing energy and entropy.

Energy exists in 3 THREE forms, Kinetic, Potential and Heat, only kinetic energy is the energy of motion, so energy is NOT dependent on motion.

And again, I repeat time exists ONLY in terms of motion, please show me an equation for time that does not involve motion of some kind.

I do not know where you get your science, but there is more than three types of energy. Also, you started with d = rate x time which is algebra for calculating distance, rate and time problems. Where does energy come into it?

Why don't we start with the following before you go rambling on to try and determine which came first space, time, motion, matter and force? These five are the basics before we get into energy or calculations.

What we want to discuss is the physics of space, time, motion, matter and force. These are the five fundamental manifestations of natural phenomena.

"Physics evolved from Newton's Mechanics which is founded on a Metaphysics of Space and Time, which require the further concepts of the Motion of Matter 'particles' and thus also gravity 'forces' to connect these discrete matter 'particles'. The problem for physics was how are all these things connected."

Time: On the Physics / Metaphysics of Time due to the Wave Motion of Space. The Metaphysics of Space and Motion (not Time)

I think we agree that all of these things are required in the natural world and it leads to energy in the above graph -- 10 Types of Energy and Examples.

Where we will probably disagree is how they came to be? According to God (force), the universe is a matrix of space, time, matter, and motion. All of it has to be existing at the same conflux. It all has to come together or none of it exists. One cannot exist without the other. The entire continuum must have existed simultaneously from the beginning or the universe would not form.

Your STUPID chart leaves out HEAT, the third form of energy. All the other types of energy in your chart are varieties of either kinetic or potential energy, the other 2 FORMS of energy.

Types of Energy - Knowledge Bank - Solar Schools
Forms of energy
There are many different types of energy, which all fall into two primary forms – kinetic and potential. Energy can transform from one type to another, but it can never be destroyed or created.

LMAO. I doubt the chart is stupid as you didn't know all the different energies. Look hard and you'll find heat there. It starts with a 'T.' Like I said in my previous post, I think we are on different levels. I am presenting a college-level academic view and have listed the five fundamental manifestations of natural phenomena. You just presented a partial list and then went right into which came first or what is required for the other to work or exist. Now that is STUPID AF and jumping to conclusions. Your logic is incomplete, has holes in it and yet you tell everyone else that they're wrong or something they presented is wrong .

Hey idiot, I said FORMS of energy, not TYPES, all TYPES of energy fall into 3 (THREE) FORMS, Kinetic, Potential and Heat, look it up idiot.

Wrong again. I looked you up and got -- Definition of LOSER. In that you resort to ad hominems when I posted the graph. Thus, you lose and I win. How much embarrassment can you take in front of all these people?

It goes to show stupidity and atheist wrongness, i.e. their beliefs, science and religion, have no limits. You are the perfect example of this AF.

What you listed were classifications of a total system and not forms. Forms and types are interchangeable. It's all listed here for the ones who seek real knowledge -- Energy - Wikipedia.

I think I pegged you just right. All you argue about is semantics and that is BORING. You posted a definition from a dictionary to base your argument on. You are soooooooooooo farking boring that women must say to you, "Excuse me, I have to go barf" as they head their way to the bathroom.

 

[edthecynic]

Forms and types are interchangeable.

Bullshit!
Types of Energy - Knowledge Bank - Solar Schools
Forms of energy
There are many different types of energy, which all fall into two primary forms – kinetic and potential. Energy can transform from one type to another, but it can never be destroyed or created.

 

[james bond]

Why not? The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it. You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise. So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.

We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one. You cannot prove another universe unless you can create one at CERN, but you haven't been able to show particles in and out of existence. For example, the graviton has not been found. Atheist scientists make wild cosmology and then can't back anything up while science has backed up the universe.

I don't think gravity works by particle force.

 

[zaangalewa]

First: It is bad behavior to anwer a question with a question.

Excuse you, i answered your question in my post.

Which question? I have millions and more. I find questions much faster than answers.

The bad behavior is all yours in attempting to dodge my points.

I try to bring you wishi-washi into a much more concrete context. Believe whatever you like to believe - that's not the problem of anyone else, but your belief is not natural science, which is basing on the philosophical concept empirism.

Why to use an unproven complexity in natural science, which no one needs for nothing?

Excuse you, i not only answered that question as well, but also demonstrated why it is very poorly worded and ass backwards wrong in its assumption.

?

Mathematics dictates nothing what's real or unreal.

Excuse you, mathematics dictates the possibility. Thats now 3 times you have misrepresented me.

Paint whatever picture you like to paint.

Physics and math paint this picture, as i clearly said. That's 4 times.

You know what, you little weasel? Piss off.

Indeed the weasel is one of my favorite heraldic animals - besides the unicorns, lions and others. This love for weasels came from the time, when George W. Bush called all Germans and French "Old Europe" and "weasels", before he made for the Saudi Arabians, who had bombed down the WTC, his totally stupid and criminal preemptive strike against the weapons of mass dissapearance in the Iraq. In those days I had big problems to find out, that your culture attributes this wonderful shy, intelligent and skillful predator with the socio-psychological attribute "insidiousness". But this is not a charcteristics of weasels and hermelins. This is a characteristics of human beings, who kill this animals and make out of their skin capes for kings.
Natural science is not politics too. Non one should need assertiveness in sciene. Either something is true or wrong - but that's not so important, what you are able to learn when you read what Aristotle wrote. The way is important how to clear questions of philosophy and science. That's why "the philosopher" Aristotle and "the interpreter" Averoes had created all modern universities of the world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one.

And, by "we", you mean just the tiny percentage of humans who have ever lived that buy, hook line and sinker, your preferred little nugget of iron aged nonsense.

But, you see, nobody gives a shit what you "believe" or think you "know", because it is based on magical incantations and myths from ignorant, semi-literate people.

 

[zaangalewa]

We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one.

And, by "we", you mean just the tiny percentage of humans who have ever lived that buy, hook line and sinker, your preferred little nugget of iron aged nonsense.

But, you see, nobody gives a shit what you "believe" or think you "know", because it is based on magical incantations and myths from ignorant, semi-literate people.

If someone denies your attack "nobody gives a shit" with "everybody gives a shit" then this shows only that your own way to feel and to think is a very big problem. For natural scientists it's somehow always "magic" to switch on a light and light appears really. This moment on its own has a lot of the magic of the words of the bible too: 'And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.'

 

[zaangalewa]

Why not? The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it. You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise. So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.

We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one. ...

Did he say so? The very old sentence "He cretated the heavens and the worlds" looks not like the people in former times had the impression god limited his creation to only one interpretation of reality. So why not different natural laws in different universes? The real astonishing thing is not this - the real astonishing thing is we are able to have ideas, which try to overstep the reality in which we live here. What we are not able to overstep: We are not able to think about a universe without any natural laws.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

If you are the future of the USA, then I have to say your future seems to be dumb & dark.