• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
"an eternal infinite universe doesn't need scientific proof"

What, yes it does unless we just want to imagine and go with nothing but beliefs.
Hold on a there buster...the universe exists yes, you and I both are not imagining it.....but you believe it once didn't exist yes? And I am asking you to prove to me how what we both know is real was once not real.

Iow, I am not questioning the status qou, ie. this real universe has always been a real universe, you otoh are saying that real universe is not always a real universe....so the onus is on you to explain how real came from unreal?

"it was, is, and will always be....to prove this isn't true, you would need to prove that nothing preceded something...

There is no such thing as No-Thing as the Vacuum energy shows.
Agreed, so please explain explicitly what you believe filled the space that is now filled by this real universe before the believed BB took place?

"What's more, an eternal infinite living universe doesn't require proof, it was, is, and will always be alive...to prove this isn't true, you need to prove that that the source of life is non-life..."

Your just making statements here. Are you saying rocks are living?
I am implying that the life force of the universe is omnipresent, it is the universal life force that manifests all form.

"By proof I don't mean mental conceptualizations....I mean the actual creation of some non-living thing from nothing, and the second display of creation needed to convince me is the creation of life from the non-life.."

I don't think your watching the videos I am posting, showing how organic matter can become life as we know it.
You seem to not understand what is being said to you.....I am not interested in pretend simulated conceptualizations, be they mathematical, visual, aural, verbal, symbolic, etc., I want proof as in making non living matter alive. Understood?

"Now since I understand that the universe is alive, the theory of evolution is not life arising from non-life, it is just a growing complexity of life from experience.. it is how the whole cosmos works.."

"Now since I understand that the universe is alive"

This is a problem and does not match our ideas on life and importantly central nervous systems.
Maybe so, but your limited belief as to what defines life is not one I would limit myself to....it's a bit like anthropomorphism, but extended to some of the lower kingdoms of nature....

"the theory of evolution is not life arising from non-life, it is just a growing complexity of life from experience."

I have no idea what you mean here, nor is that the complexities of evolution.
It ties in with what I said above about the omnipresent life force....wherever the environment is appropriate, the cosmos manifest form....micro to macro...and such forms evolve with experience...

You say the Earth is alive? If it is why doesn't it kick our butts off it as we poison it.

The sun is burning helium to hydrogen, does it think? Is it intelligent? Is it self aware?

Can you show at all the universe is self aware?
Yes, the Sun, though not merely the manifested form, has cosmic awareness....but to ask me that question is like one bacterium in your body asking another one does this universe (presuming they have the equivalent of a Hubble Space Telescope), ie. meaning you in which they exist, have self awareness?

"Shawn, you appear to be a devout atheist of great faith in prophets like Hawking, but you have the potential within you to discover what and who you are in a greater context than the limited picture provided by materialism. All the best...."

Ben, I have to tell you, first you called me a Christian and now an atheist and use terms like the "great faith in prophets like Hawking" which are all wrong. I don't think or use the term "prophets" or faith" in science. I am not a christian or and atheist.
Fine. sorry Shawn...

"but you have the potential within you to discover what and who you are in a greater context than the limited picture provided by materialism. All the best...'

I don't believe the universe or nature is a limited picture. I am also pretty happy with myself and the greater context and a deep peace. You keep trying to label me for some reason.
Fine, sorry Shawn....
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
There are those that can judge the results of an archery contest,
without using arrows, or targets.
~
When exlaining the presence of the primal 'void',
the entity, or lack of any 'form', that contained the 'singularity',
into what did the 'singularity' inflate ?
~
And some here tell me that 'it' is still inflating.
I agree, it's still moving, and gaining inertia,
until it collides with something, or peices of it.
~
In representing the 'expanding' 'universe' in graphics and graphs and such,
into what is the 'edge' of the expanding 'universe' expanding ?
Where does that nothingness, (void), begin, some people don't want to discuss it.
They can describe the 'inflation', and the supposed 'singularity',
but they can't fathom the supposed 'void', or 'nothingness',
from where all that 'singularity' started, and to where 'it' is going.
~
The Cosmos and all of it's 'multiverses' started from collisions,
those crashing chaotic mixing of untold stars and subsets of stars,
then the mixing of gases and the rebirth of those gases into others stars.
And then the forming of galaxies to carreen into others like them.
~
Only a preist could come with the theory of the subset of the Big Bang.
It has to fit inside of Genesis and Moses' wild dreams.
~
There have been trillions upon trillions of BB's in the cosmos,
and there will be many more, beyond my lifetime and beyond.
Remember where you heard this, there will be a test on Friday!
~
From where did all those galaxies, chaotically colliding into one another ?
I don't really know, but it wasn't from the "Big Bang".
~
We don't need targets or arrows to judge the results of the contest,
just some good common sense.
~
'mud
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Hold on a there buster...the universe exists yes, you and I both are not imagining it.....but you believe it once didn't exist yes? And I am asking you to prove to me how what we both know is real was once not real.

Iow, I am not questioning the status qou, ie. this real universe has always been a real universe, you otoh are saying that real universe is not always a real universe....so the onus is on you to explain how real came from unreal?


Agreed, so please explain explicitly what you believe filled the space that is now filled by this real universe before the believed BB took place?


I am implying that the life force of the universe is omnipresent, it is the universal life force that manifests all form.


You seem to not understand what is being said to you.....I am not interested in pretend simulated conceptualizations, be they mathematical, visual, aural, verbal, symbolic, etc., I want proof as in making non living matter alive. Understood?


Maybe so, but your limited belief as to what defines life is not one I would limit myself to....it's a bit like anthropomorphism, but extended to some of the lower kingdoms of nature....


It ties in with what I said above about the omnipresent life force....wherever the environment is appropriate, the cosmos manifest form....micro to macro...and such forms evolve with experience...


Yes, the Sun, though not merely the manifested form, has cosmic awareness....but to ask me that question is like one bacterium in your body asking another one does this universe (presuming they have the equivalent of a Hubble Space Telescope), ie. meaning you in which they exist, have self awareness?


Fine. sorry Shawn...


Fine, sorry Shawn....


No one knows how the universe started, that is why they are researching it and need a unified theory with QM and cosmology.

We do know it had a beginning which isn't what it looks like today. We do know its expanding as well.

Explanation of how the Universe came into being from nothing.


An explanation about how the Universe came into being from nothing. Hopefully an explanation that you CAN wrap your head around. And because protons and electrons can pop into being all the time, the Universe has made this 'something from nothing' transition without breaking any of the known laws of nature.




Lawrence M. Krauss || A Universe from Nothing || Radcliffe Institute

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been asked for millennia by people who argue for a creator of our universe. Taking a trip back to the beginning of the beginning and the end of the end—and reviewing the remarkable developments in cosmology and particle physics over the past 40 years that have revolutionized our picture of the universe—Lawrence M. Krauss explores the discoveries that have revolutionized our understanding of both nothing and something. It has become clear that not only can our universe naturally arise from nothing, without supernatural shenanigans, but that it probably did."



Remember though in physics there is no such thing as No-Thing.

Also remember we can go back in Planck time to the beginning and then the math breaks down to nonsense.


Did Cosmic Inflation Really Jump-Start the Universe? (Kavli Hangout)
March 12, 2015
"
Kelen Tuttle, writer and editor for The Kavli Foundation, contributed this article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The oldest light in the universe, the cosmic microwave background, is a fossil from the Big Bang that fills every square inch of the sky. It provides a glimpse of what the universe looked like nearly 14 billion years ago, and can shed light on its evolution and how much dark matter and dark energy the universe contains.

Recently, two high-profile experiments released new data and analysis of this early light. Researchers working on the Planck satellite — which detects distant light from its orbit 930,000 miles above Earth — released new maps of the cosmic microwave background. These maps seem to support the theory of cosmic inflation, which posits that the universe underwent an enormous expansion in the moments following the Big Bang. During that time, space grew monumentally, swelling from smaller than a proton to an enormity that defies comprehension.

Did Cosmic Inflation Really Jump-Start the Universe?


"There was no carbon, when the universe began in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. It was so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons. There would initially have been equal numbers of protons and neutrons. However, as the universe expanded, it would have cooled. About a minute after the Big Bang, the temperature would have fallen to about a billion degrees, about a hundred times the temperature in the Sun. At this temperature, the neutrons will start to decay into more protons. If this had been all that happened, all the matter in the universe would have ended up as the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of a single proton. However, some of the neutrons collided with protons, and stuck together to form the next simplest element, helium, whose nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. But no heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen, would have been formed in the early universe. It is difficult to imagine that one could build a living system, out of just hydrogen and helium, and anyway the early universe was still far too hot for atoms to combine into molecules.

The universe would have continued to expand, and cool. But some regions would have had slightly higher densities than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra matter in those regions, would slow down their expansion, and eventually stop it. Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars, starting from about two billion years after the Big Bang. Some of the early stars would have been more massive than our Sun. They would have been hotter than the Sun, and would have burnt the original hydrogen and helium, into heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. This could have taken only a few hundred million years. After that, some of the stars would have exploded as supernovas, and scattered the heavy elements back into space, to form the raw material for later generations of stars.

Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking


"You seem to not understand what is being said to you.....I am not interested in pretend simulated conceptualizations, be they mathematical, visual, aural, verbal, symbolic, etc., I want proof as in making non living matter alive. Understood?

I showed how it is possible for the life to come from organic matter and you made no comment. I don't think you watch the videos and who that expert was on it.

Regardless, the early earth was extremely hostile to life in fact it would not have been able to survive, no Van Allen belts, so radiation would fry everything, as well as the planet being hit by asteroids and volcanic activity, until things settled down and cooled. We also know Cynobacteria created the oxygen atmosphere we have today.


"Maybe so, but your limited belief as to what defines life is not one I would limit myself to....it's a bit like anthropomorphism, but extended to some of the lower kingdoms of nature...."

I don't believe rocks and gas and dust are conscious or intelligent or the Earth or sun or the universe. If you have something to prove that I am all ears, other then you just believe it.

An asteroid hits the Earth, Moon, Jupiter, Mars or what ever because they are in the path. I don't think all the craters on the moon were put there by something conscious or intelligent. Billions of things are colliding in space everyday if not a number no one could really grasp in the whole universe.

We see other solar systems forming now and know the process.

By what mechanism would the sun have cosmic awareness? Your saying its aware of itself? How does that work?

We only know of life on one planet right now, although good chance there are others. Perhaps some made from silicon.

No worries on the last items.
.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
There are those that can judge the results of an archery contest,
without using arrows, or targets.
~
When exlaining the presence of the primal 'void',
the entity, or lack of any 'form', that contained the 'singularity',
into what did the 'singularity' inflate ?
~
And some here tell me that 'it' is still inflating.
I agree, it's still moving, and gaining inertia,
until it collides with something, or peices of it.
~
In representing the 'expanding' 'universe' in graphics and graphs and such,
into what is the 'edge' of the expanding 'universe' expanding ?
Where does that nothingness, (void), begin, some people don't want to discuss it.
They can describe the 'inflation', and the supposed 'singularity',
but they can't fathom the supposed 'void', or 'nothingness',
from where all that 'singularity' started, and to where 'it' is going.
~
The Cosmos and all of it's 'multiverses' started from collisions,
those crashing chaotic mixing of untold stars and subsets of stars,
then the mixing of gases and the rebirth of those gases into others stars.
And then the forming of galaxies to carreen into others like them.
~
Only a preist could come with the theory of the subset of the Big Bang.
It has to fit inside of Genesis and Moses' wild dreams.
~
There have been trillions upon trillions of BB's in the cosmos,
and there will be many more, beyond my lifetime and beyond.
Remember where you heard this, there will be a test on Friday!
~
From where did all those galaxies, chaotically colliding into one another ?
I don't really know, but it wasn't from the "Big Bang".
~
We don't need targets or arrows to judge the results of the contest,
just some good common sense.
~
'mud


Mud, I like the there will be a test on Friday. ;)

But

"
There have been trillions upon trillions of BB's in the cosmos,
and there will be many more, beyond my lifetime and beyond.
Remember where you heard this, there will be a test on Friday!
~
There could be trillion of bangs creating other universes, its possible we could have another bang in this one, its possible the dark matter and dark energy might be another universe inside this one perhaps, but there have not been "trillions upon trillions of BB's" in this universe we are in now. We would be able to detect it.

As for outside our universe, we can see an edge or outside, its like being in a balloon that is expanding, where we can't see the edge or the outside.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
No one knows how the universe started, that is why they are researching it and need a unified theory with QM and cosmology.

We do know it had a beginning which isn't what it looks like today. We do know its expanding as well.

Explanation of how the Universe came into being from nothing.


An explanation about how the Universe came into being from nothing. Hopefully an explanation that you CAN wrap your head around. And because protons and electrons can pop into being all the time, the Universe has made this 'something from nothing' transition without breaking any of the known laws of nature.




Lawrence M. Krauss || A Universe from Nothing || Radcliffe Institute

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been asked for millennia by people who argue for a creator of our universe. Taking a trip back to the beginning of the beginning and the end of the end—and reviewing the remarkable developments in cosmology and particle physics over the past 40 years that have revolutionized our picture of the universe—Lawrence M. Krauss explores the discoveries that have revolutionized our understanding of both nothing and something. It has become clear that not only can our universe naturally arise from nothing, without supernatural shenanigans, but that it probably did."



Remember though in physics there is no such thing as No-Thing.

Also remember we can go back in Planck time to the beginning and then the math breaks down to nonsense.


Did Cosmic Inflation Really Jump-Start the Universe? (Kavli Hangout)
March 12, 2015
"
Kelen Tuttle, writer and editor for The Kavli Foundation, contributed this article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

The oldest light in the universe, the cosmic microwave background, is a fossil from the Big Bang that fills every square inch of the sky. It provides a glimpse of what the universe looked like nearly 14 billion years ago, and can shed light on its evolution and how much dark matter and dark energy the universe contains.

Recently, two high-profile experiments released new data and analysis of this early light. Researchers working on the Planck satellite — which detects distant light from its orbit 930,000 miles above Earth — released new maps of the cosmic microwave background. These maps seem to support the theory of cosmic inflation, which posits that the universe underwent an enormous expansion in the moments following the Big Bang. During that time, space grew monumentally, swelling from smaller than a proton to an enormity that defies comprehension.

Did Cosmic Inflation Really Jump-Start the Universe?


"There was no carbon, when the universe began in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. It was so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons. There would initially have been equal numbers of protons and neutrons. However, as the universe expanded, it would have cooled. About a minute after the Big Bang, the temperature would have fallen to about a billion degrees, about a hundred times the temperature in the Sun. At this temperature, the neutrons will start to decay into more protons. If this had been all that happened, all the matter in the universe would have ended up as the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of a single proton. However, some of the neutrons collided with protons, and stuck together to form the next simplest element, helium, whose nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. But no heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen, would have been formed in the early universe. It is difficult to imagine that one could build a living system, out of just hydrogen and helium, and anyway the early universe was still far too hot for atoms to combine into molecules.

The universe would have continued to expand, and cool. But some regions would have had slightly higher densities than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra matter in those regions, would slow down their expansion, and eventually stop it. Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars, starting from about two billion years after the Big Bang. Some of the early stars would have been more massive than our Sun. They would have been hotter than the Sun, and would have burnt the original hydrogen and helium, into heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. This could have taken only a few hundred million years. After that, some of the stars would have exploded as supernovas, and scattered the heavy elements back into space, to form the raw material for later generations of stars.

Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking


"You seem to not understand what is being said to you.....I am not interested in pretend simulated conceptualizations, be they mathematical, visual, aural, verbal, symbolic, etc., I want proof as in making non living matter alive. Understood?

I showed how it is possible for the life to come from organic matter and you made no comment. I don't think you watch the videos and who that expert was on it.

Regardless, the early earth was extremely hostile to life in fact it would not have been able to survive, no Van Allen belts, so radiation would fry everything, as well as the planet being hit by asteroids and volcanic activity, until things settled down and cooled. We also know Cynobacteria created the oxygen atmosphere we have today.


"Maybe so, but your limited belief as to what defines life is not one I would limit myself to....it's a bit like anthropomorphism, but extended to some of the lower kingdoms of nature...."

I don't believe rocks and gas and dust are conscious or intelligent or the Earth or sun or the universe. If you have something to prove that I am all ears, other then you just believe it.

An asteroid hits the Earth, Moon, Jupiter, Mars or what ever because they are in the path. I don't think all the craters on the moon were put there by something conscious or intelligent. Billions of things are colliding in space everyday if not a number no one could really grasp in the whole universe.

We see other solar systems forming now and know the process.

By what mechanism would the sun have cosmic awareness? Your saying its aware of itself? How does that work?

We only know of life on one planet right now, although good chance there are others. Perhaps some made from silicon.

No worries on the last items.
.
Shawn, sorry, but it seems my attempts to convey my understanding are failing as shown by your consistent erroneous interpretation of what I've intended to convey. I do understand the quite materialist scientific theories you are consistently posting, but will only note that no scientist can explain the 100% using theory based on the 5%. But that's fine....thank you...
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Shawn, sorry, but it seems my attempts to convey my understanding are failing as shown by your consistent erroneous interpretation of what I've intended to convey. I do understand the quite materialist scientific theories you are consistently posting, but will only note that no scientist can explain the 100% using theory based on the 5%. But that's fine....thank you...

You keep referring to 5%, which I think you getting from 5% of matter we have detected.

No one has ever said they have it 100% completely figured out.


Our Lopsided Universe is Darker, Lighter, Slower, Older & More Mysterious than We Thought

"
The properties of the hot and cold regions of the map provide information about the composition and evolution of the Universe. Normal matter that makes up stars and galaxies contributes just 4.9% of the mass/energy density of the Universe. Dark matter, which has thus far only been detected indirectly by its gravitational influence, makes up 26.8%, nearly a fifth more than the previous estimate. Conversely, dark energy, a mysterious force thought to be responsible for accelerating the expansion of the Universe, accounts for slightly less than previously thought, at around 69%.

The Planck data also set a new value for the rate at which the Universe is expanding today, known as the Hubble constant. At 67.3 km/s/Mpc, this is significantly different from the value measured from relatively nearby galaxies. This somewhat slower expansion implies that the Universe is also a little older than previously thought, at 13.8 billion years.

The analysis also gives strong support for theories of "inflation", a very brief but crucial early phase during the first tiny fraction of a second of the Universe's existence. As well as explaining many properties of the Universe as a whole, this initial expansion caused the ripples in the CMB that we see today.

Although this primordial epoch can't be observed directly, the theory predicts a set of very subtle imprints on the CMB map. Previous experiments have not been able to confidently detect these subtle imprints, but the high resolution of Planck's map confirms that the tiny variations in the density of the early Universe match those predicted by inflation.


"The sizes of these tiny ripples hold the key to what happened in that first trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Planck has given us striking new evidence that indicates they were created during this incredibly fast expansion, just after the Big Bang", explained Joanna Dunkley of the University of Oxford.

But because the precision of Planck's map is so high, it also reveals some peculiar unexplained features that may well require new physics to be understood. Amongst the most surprising findings are that the fluctuations in the CMB over large scales do not match those predicted by the standard model. This anomaly adds to those observed by previous experiments, and confirmed by Planck, including an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky, and a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected.

One way to explain the anomalies is to propose that the Universe is in fact not the same in all directions on a larger scale than we can observe. In this scenario, the light rays from the CMB may have taken a more complicated route through the Universe than previously understood, resulting in some of the unusual patterns observed today.

"Our ultimate goal would be to construct a new model that predicts the anomalies and links them together. But these are early days; so far, we don't know whether this is possible and what type of new physics might be needed. And that's exciting," says Professor Efstathiou

Our Lopsided Universe is Darker, Lighter, Slower, Older & More Mysterious than We Thought


I am not posting supernatural explanations, is that something your objecting too?
 
Top