Define Universe

[Ben Dhyan]

If north pole exists, then the south also exists, one cannot finish north pole without finishing the south pole. Right?
Regards

There is no north pole or south pole outside of the conceptual/dualitic mind of mortals......these apparent two things are only time space observed relative dualistic aspects...sssshh....I suppose you thinks we Australians really do live down under...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is there a difference between A universe and THE universe.?
are ALL universes the same with the same laws?

Not really, the concept of 'universe' represents the reality of ONE existence...the prefix uni = one... The concept of the plural ALL universes is not correct English...one should say 'multiverse'...(which the is the universe).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When I was brought up the Universe contained "ÄLL" since the big bang. I am now a science teacher and when approached by those of a religious bent I explain it this way. Like a concentric pool of Venn Diagrams I explain here is the Universe and here is that we do know and here is that we don't know. Although god does not exist in the "known to me" (evidence) Universe, but I cannot presuppose he does not exist in the realm that is not known. What we do know is mathematics is universal, physics is its manifestation in mass, energy, space and time. As a subset of this is chemistry the electronic interactions of matter. Then Biology, sentience, psychology, sociology, religion, science and technology and information. We are part of an amazing experiment of chaos resulting in sentience and evolution. The drive is to improve....health, longevity, wealth, standard of living quality of life. We are part of an evolutionary process. We are neither the start nor the end of this process which will last several million years and we may have as much resemblance to future man as us and Australopithecus.
Results form the Hubble telescope and other deep space analysis, indicate matter, physics and chemistry on the other side of the universe and basically the same as here.

Getting back to the original topic, where what I was after is, what are the limits of the universe. Consider the Big Bang , expanding over time 13.8 BYO matter spreads out behind a massive burst of light radiation, followed by subatomic particles eg electrons followed by "chunky matter" (us). While in religious terms God is beyond all this scientific stuff and can just whip up the whole Universe of amazing complexity, in a few seconds, that is really cool if was true. The problem is the quandary of contradictions of where did god come form, what mechanism of his interaction with our world etc etc.


Taking the scientific definition we are the product of a "Big Bang" phenomena, our egocentric aptitude blinded us to the possibility that this may not be a unique event. Quasars are a phenomena that show a brilliance of thousands of galaxies, are these other local "Big Bangs". All things in the Universe rotate so it is odds on the whole universe rotates. Russian and Canadian estimates this rate as 10^-13 rad/sec a very slow rate. But wind back the clock 13.8 billion years and our universe would have been spinning a lot faster (remember the spinning ice skater that pulls in her arms and spins faster to maintain her angular momentum?). this leads to a figure of about 30,000 km because beyond that particles would have to violate the speed of light axiom of our physics.Where did the Universal angular momentum come from?
Is this evidence of a previously collapsing earlier universe? A perpetual oscillation between energy and matter?

Perhaps a "Big Bang occurs when a spinning black hole gathers so much matter that its diameter reaches this light speed circumference value destabilizes and initiates the next Big Bang.

Some black holes may spin at different rates so fast ones explode earlier, but slow ones are far more powerful.

What is your definition?
Cheers

"Big Bang' was originally a pejorative term coined by atheist Hoyle to mock the 'religious pseudoscience' of the Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory.

Atheists at the time overwhelmingly preferred static models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator) and that rationale had one logical place to go; a self perpetuating cyclical system; e.g. Hawking's 'Big Crunch' before that too was debunked by scientific observation.

Atheist creation stories now reside in multiverses, black holes, anywhere still hiding from the light of science

 

[metis]

"Big Bang' was originally a pejorative term coined by atheist Hoyle to mock the 'religious pseudoscience' of the Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory.

Atheists at the time overwhelmingly preferred static models for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator) and that rationale had one logical place to go; a self perpetuating cyclical system; e.g. Hawking's 'Big Crunch' before that too was debunked by scientific observation.

Atheist creation stories now reside in multiverses, black holes, anywhere still hiding from the light of science

First of all, the "Big Crunch" has not been "debunked". True, the universe not only is expanding but also is actually accelerating, however Einstein's Relativity approach has it being at least mathematically possible that the dark energy/dark matter that appears to probably be causing this expansion may change as it thins out so as to actually begin to attract, therefore contract, our universe.

Atheists do not prefer "static models", so I don't know where you got that from. The overwhelming majority of cosmologists, whereas around 90% of them are agnostics or atheists, do accept the ToE going back to singularity.

 

[viole]

First of all, the "Big Crunch" has not been "debunked". True, the universe not only is expanding but also is actually accelerating, however Einstein's Relativity approach has it being at least mathematically possible that the dark energy/dark matter that appears to probably be causing this expansion may change as it thins out so as to actually begin to attract, therefore contract, our universe.

Atheists do not prefer "static models", so I don't know where you got that from. The overwhelming majority of cosmologists, whereas around 90% of them are agnostics or atheists, do accept the ToE going back to singularity.

Good point.

Even the priest who postulated the Big Bang advised the pope not to draw any theological conclusion out of it. The reason is obvious: there is nothing in BB cosmology that supports the idea of a creator. Unless, we are desperate to find one, at least, that goes beyond faith.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The atheist cosmologists though are in the same bind as the theists in theorizing a beginning......what caused non-existence (no time space) to come into existence (time space) at time zero...and the scientific description? Clearly they can never do so without implying a miracle or magic, only the gullible true believers accept it, and who deny the obvious....there was never a beginning, nor could there be....for the universe is eternal for the logical reason that nothing does not exist, and has never existed...

For those who disagree with my position, there is no point in ad homs, appealing to authority, obfuscation with irrelevant CMBR and red shift comments, and general hand waving....please address my points clearly...

 

[metis]

According to Leonard Susskind, he says most cosmologists lean in the direction infinity whereas there is no true beginning. This may be viewed as a logical by-product of cause & effect whereas there's no true beginning. IOW, something(s) always existed. The irony is that theists think the same, so it really is a "wash".

As for me, I take my copyrighted "I don't know" position, and all violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. .

 

[Ben Dhyan]

According to Leonard Susskind, he says most cosmologists lean in the direction infinity whereas there is no true beginning. This may be viewed as a logical by-product of cause & effect whereas there's no true beginning. IOW, something(s) always existed. The irony is that theists think the same, so it really is a "wash".

As for me, I take my copyrighted "I don't know" position, and all violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. .

But is this... "According to Leonard Susskind, he says most cosmologists lean in the direction infinity whereas there is no true beginning."...consistent with this..."The overwhelming majority of cosmologists, whereas around 90% of them are agnostics or atheists, do accept the ToE going back to singularity." ?

 

[metis]

But is this... "According to Leonard Susskind, he says most cosmologists lean in the direction infinity whereas there is no true beginning."...consistent with this..."The overwhelming majority of cosmologists, whereas around 90% of them are agnostics or atheists, do accept the ToE going back to singularity." ?

Yes, as "singularity" is a reference to the evidence that the BB (expansion of the universe) started at a given point, not that this point was monolithic. For example, one hypothesis has it that there were different charges at that point prior to the BB but that possibly some of these highly charged particles may have gotten too close together and repelled, thus breaking the bonds. Another has it that we may have been spit out of a black hole in another universe. Then there's Brane Theory whereas energy membranes may have "rubbed" across each other, spinning us off and leading to the BB.

I don't know of a single cosmologist who believes that it all happened by "magic", but there are a small handful that do believe that there may have been a theistic cause. Although, according to Susskind, those that are theistically inclined don't fit too well into the orthodoxy of any religion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, as "singularity" is a reference to the evidence that the BB (expansion of the universe) started at a given point, not that this point was monolithic. For example, one hypothesis has it that there were different charges at that point prior to the BB but that possibly some of these highly charged particles may have gotten too close together and repelled, thus breaking the bonds. Another has it that we may have been spit out of a black hole in another universe. Then there's Brane Theory whereas energy membranes may have "rubbed" across each other, spinning us off and leading to the BB.

I don't know of a single cosmologist who believes that it all happened by "magic", but there are a small handful that do believe that there may have been a theistic cause. Although, according to Susskind, those that are theistically inclined don't fit too well into the orthodoxy of any religion.

But of course they do not admit it happened by magic..but they can not provide a scientific or logical explanation of how any post time zero time-space stuff they talk about, arose from no-space time...so they are in denial about the magical beginning they believe in...

 

[metis]

But of course they do not admit it happened by magic..but they can not provide a scientific or logical explanation of how any post time zero time-space stuff they talk about, arose from no-space time...so they are in denial about the magical beginning they believe in...

Just because we don't know exactly what may have caused our universe to form and then expand doesn't mean it had to be "magic". Quite the contrary if our universe is a mere by-product of cause & effect that goes back into infinity. What scientific evidence is there for a theistic cause? That's easy to answer: none.

Matter of fact, what little evidence we have actually goes against a theistic cause, namely that everything we experience seems to be wrapped up in cause & effect, so why should we believe it was any different way back when? What logic is there for any theistic cause without violating that which we see happening all around us?

Gotta go for now.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just because we don't know exactly what may have caused our universe to form and then expand doesn't mean it had to be "magic". Quite the contrary if our universe is a mere by-product of cause & effect that goes back into infinity. What scientific evidence is there for a theistic cause? That's easy to answer: none.

Matter of fact, what little evidence we have actually goes against a theistic cause, namely that everything we experience seems to be wrapped up in cause & effect, so why should we believe it was any different way back when? What logic is there for any theistic cause without violating that which we see happening all around us?

Gotta go for now.

Ok...I was not referring to those cosmologists who believe the universe may be a product of cause and effect going back to 'infinity'...but those who theorize non-existence (no space time) became existence at time zero of this universe..... I am not suggesting a theistic cause... or theistic creation...I am say the universe had no beginning...it is eternal..for if it weren't....only a miraculous or magical explanation would suffice as the fairy tale of existence...

 

[metis]

Ok...I was not referring to those cosmologists who believe the universe may be a product of cause and effect going back to 'infinity'...but those who theorize non-existence (no space time) became existence at time zero of this universe..... I am not suggesting a theistic cause... or theistic creation...I am say the universe had no beginning...it is eternal..for if it weren't....only a miraculous or magical explanation would suffice as the fairy tale of existence...

Generally speaking, I know of no cosmologist or physicist who believes all came from literally nothing. Every one that I have read suggest that there was something prior to the expansion, mathematically very minute, such as about the size of a present-day atom. As far as we know mathematically, space-time is elastic, not nihilistic. For just one example, Steven Hawking now believes that it is entirely possible that our universe and possibly others may have been created by gravity waves alone.

Secondly, as I have posted, there not only isn't one shred of evidence that our universe is "eternal", but that within itself actually violates cause-and-effect. The Steady-State Theory, which Einstein actually believed was likely, is not supported by any cosmologist today because of all the data on the BB.

For example, our universe today is in a constant state of flux with stars sometimes being formed at the outer edge of black holes (flares) while others get swallowed up by black holes. These two sets of occurrences are very far from being the only dynamics taking place in our universe. And because of what we now know about quantum mechanics, more and more cosmologists now believe we are more likely one component of a multiverse. Because of this, it is entirely conceivable that there could be other universes that could be billions or even trillions of years older than ours, or even more, maybe to infinity.

Now, just a reminder that none of this proves or disproves a possible theistic causation. As for me, I take the "cop-out approach": whatever caused our universe I'll call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that. Even if there was to be a theistic causation, that in and of itself literally proves nothing in terms of the Bible or any other scriptures. Nor does it establish anything about god or gods other than it/they create.

So, no matter how one looks at it, it's really a theological dead-end not worth losing any sleep over.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Generally speaking, I know of no cosmologist or physicist who believes all came from literally nothing. Every one that I have read suggest that there was something prior to the expansion, mathematically very minute, such as about the size of a present-day atom. As far as we know mathematically, space-time is elastic, not nihilistic. For just one example, Steven Hawking now believes that it is entirely possible that our universe and possibly others may have been created by gravity waves alone.

Secondly, as I have posted, there not only isn't one shred of evidence that our universe is "eternal", but that within itself actually violates cause-and-effect. The Steady-State Theory, which Einstein actually believed was likely, is not supported by any cosmologist today because of all the data on the BB.

For example, our universe today is in a constant state of flux with stars sometimes being formed at the outer edge of black holes (flares) while others get swallowed up by black holes. These two sets of occurrences are very far from being the only dynamics taking place in our universe. And because of what we now know about quantum mechanics, more and more cosmologists now believe we are more likely one component of a multiverse. Because of this, it is entirely conceivable that there could be other universes that could be billions or even trillions of years older than ours, or even more, maybe to infinity.

Now, just a reminder that none of this proves or disproves a possible theistic causation. As for me, I take the "cop-out approach": whatever caused our universe I'll call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that. Even if there was to be a theistic causation, that in and of itself literally proves nothing in terms of the Bible or any other scriptures. Nor does it establish anything about god or gods other than it/they create.

So, no matter how one looks at it, it's really a theological dead-end not worth losing any sleep over.

The concept of universe as I understand it is based on the prefix 'uni'...and uni = one..... This oneness is without beginning or end...it does not depend on what is manifested or not manifested.. I am not talking about the form or energy and matter that the universe is comprised of at any time....just that existence is a fact that had not beginning....and there was never a time when existence was not...there was never nothing...and thus the universe is eternal.. Now if you disagree with this....you you will need to be explicit in explaining exactly where you think I am in error?

 

[metis]

The concept of universe as I understand it is based on the prefix 'uni'...and uni = one..... This oneness is without beginning or end...it does not depend on what is manifested or not manifested.. I am not talking about the form or energy and matter that the universe is comprised of at any time....just that existence is a fact that had not beginning....and there was never a time when existence was not...there was never nothing...and thus the universe is eternal.. Now if you disagree with this....you you will need to be explicit in explaining exactly where you think I am in error?

Nope, I wrote something and then went back and reread what you wrote and had to revise what I wrote, and I'm sorry to say that what you wrote makes no sense to me, and you calling it a "fact" simply does not make it a "fact". Again, the Steady-State Theory is no longer viable, and if I understand you correctly, that's what I perceive you pushing.

Also, there's no evidence of "oneness" as you are using it because singularity does not mean that which formed our minute atom-sized speck was monolithic. Matter of fact, that really defies logic because how could something cause itself?

I'm gonna be quite busy tomorrow, but if I can find time in the morning before I leave, I'll give you and example of what I posted last above from a brilliant former scientist and now a Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope, I wrote something and then went back and reread what you wrote and had to revise what I wrote, and I'm sorry to say that what you wrote makes no sense to me, and you calling it a "fact" simply does not make it a "fact". Again, the Steady-State Theory is no longer viable, and if I understand you correctly, that's what I perceive you pushing.

Also, there's no evidence of "oneness" as you are using it because singularity does not mean that which formed our minute atom-sized speck was monolithic. Matter of fact, that really defies logic because how could something cause itself?

I'm gonna be quite busy tomorrow, but if I can find time in the morning before I leave, I'll give you and example of what I posted last above from a brilliant former scientist and now a Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard.

No I am not pushing anything...I phrased what I said so that the universal possibilities included all the models you were suggesting....gravity waves causing the universe, etc.....

I am saying, regardless of the universal models....whether cyclical, steady state, blinking on and off., etc., etc.....there was never a beginning.. If you disagree, what caused the very first beginning?

 

[metis]

No I am not pushing anything...I phrased what I said so that the universal possibilities included all the models you were suggesting....gravity waves causing the universe, etc.....

I am saying, regardless of the universal models....whether cyclical, steady state, blinking on and off., etc., etc.....there was never a beginning.. If you disagree, what caused the very first beginning?

My last post before turning in tonight.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not think it likely there was any "beginning" because it appears that quite possibly everything, including our universe, is tied up in a massive cause-and-effect web. It seems we got a disconnect going.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

My last post before turning in tonight.

I have repeatedly stated that I do not think it likely there was any "beginning" because it appears that quite possibly everything, including our universe, is tied up in a massive cause-and-effect web. It seems we got a disconnect going.

So we are in agreement that the universe (including all cause and effect ever) is eternal...yes?

 

[Thief]

universe.....One Word

 

[Ben Dhyan]

universe.....One Word

The Word.... Logos in Greek...