Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.

[beenherebeforeagain]

did you mean light waves?
last I heard....sound cannot travel in space

Sound can travel in any medium that is sufficiently dense for motion energy to be transferred between atoms in the medium.

According to theory, when the universe was very dense, very early on, there were SOUND waves in the universe, the pattern of which helped to set the distribution of matter later on...If you're not aware of this aspect of cosmological theory, I suggest you watch a few more documentaries on the origins of the universe...or maybe, read some of the books and articles that have been written...

 

[Thief]

Sure they can....in the theoretical early universe...as energy waves at what we consider audio frequencies...

nope....not buying it
sound transfers through substance

in the thin material of space...it is lost

in space.....scream all you want to.....no one can hear you

 

[Thief]

Sound can travel in any medium that is sufficiently dense for motion energy to be transferred between atoms in the medium.

According to theory, when the universe was very dense, very early on, there were SOUND waves in the universe, the pattern of which helped to set the distribution of matter later on...If you're not aware of this aspect of cosmological theory, I suggest you watch a few more documentaries on the origins of the universe...or maybe, read some of the books and articles that have been written...

and if we bump this to science and religion section we can then discussion a spoken..... Word

 

[Ben Dhyan]

nope....not buying it
sound transfers through substance

in the thin material of space...it is lost

in space.....scream all you want to.....no one can hear you

The early universe was not composed of thin space......

 

[Thief]

The early universe was not composed of thin space......

and you are sure of this?
how so....

are we speculating to origin?......genesis?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

and you are sure of this?
how so....

are we speculating to origin?......genesis?

Surely, if you have watched as many TV documentaries on science as you claim you have, you would be familiar with the Big Bang theory, which points out that in the initial moments of the universe, conditions were entirely unlike they are today--all of matter and energy and space compressed into a very tiny space...initially smaller than an atom, but growing...over time, it came to look like it does now, but early on it was very dense and liquid-like--and ideal medium for sound transmission...

However, since you seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the theory...

 

[Thief]

Surely, if you have watched as many TV documentaries on science as you claim you have, you would be familiar with the Big Bang theory, which points out that in the initial moments of the universe, conditions were entirely unlike they are today--all of matter and energy and space compressed into a very tiny space...initially smaller than an atom, but growing...over time, it came to look like it does now, but early on it was very dense and liquid-like--and ideal medium for sound transmission...

However, since you seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the theory...

and you seem to stop short of that.....void
see genesis

 

[Ben Dhyan]

and you are sure of this?
how so....

are we speculating to origin?......genesis?

I am presuming the researchers are referring to the big bang early universe when the galaxies were first being formed and distributed.....but though I am not a true believer, one needs to address these things in the context of their belief framework..

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

and you seem to stop short of that.....void
see genesis

what....void?

Genesis? I've read Genesis...and it has no external evidence to support belief in it. I suggest you read a number of other mythologies, the hundreds or thousands of cosmogonies set out by humans...and realize that Genesis is no different than all of them.

And then, actually read up on the evidence and evidence-based theories about the origin and development of the universe. Sure, there's still arguments about the details...and MAYBE you see room in some gap there to insert your God...but it's just your belief...versus the beliefs of thousands of other traditions, versus the results of careful observation and testing.

 

[Parsimony]

It appears you are being purposely obtuse.......but I am happy to accommodate you on these issues to find the language on which we can agree.

Obtuse how?

Ok..can we agree than that time came after timelessness?

No, because it would imply that timelessness is a "thing" of some kind when it is actually defined by what it is not. Timelessness is completely conceptual.

That's what I said...read my post...the transition occurs in time....imagine a graph...at time = zero on the horizontal time axis denotes no time....so the transitions goes from no time to time as the big bang transition begins...

Which is purely conceptual. There was never a "something" called timelessness that time had to be created from.

Ok so timeless space was only hypothetical..and so I was correct then as I am now that the theory holds that space and time came into existence together..... Thus the state of no time implies also no space...no energy...no matter....simply absolute nothing... I rest my case..

Which was never actually a "state" (i.e. there never was no space, no time and no energy/matter in our universe).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Obtuse how?

No, because it would imply that timelessness is a "thing" of some kind when it is actually defined by what it is not. Timelessness is completely conceptual.

Which is purely conceptual. There was never a "something" called timelessness that time had to be created from.

Which was never actually a "state" (i.e. there never was no space, no time and no energy/matter in our universe).

Because of deceptive statements like this...."Timelessness is completely conceptual".....all language is conceptual....what you probably mean is that timelessness is hypothetical concept....iow, it is a concept to represent the hypothetical state of timelessness... So saying it is conceptual or hypothetical does not protect your belief from being challenged. So what was time created from?

Ok then, my understanding is that what humans perceive as space, time, energy/matter, etc.,...are eternal aspects of the universe...ie..there never was no space, no time and no energy/matter.

But if you insist on saying the universe had a beginning, it follows logically that there was a cause...so I ask you...why and how did universal existence come into being from the absence of universal existence?

 

[Parsimony]

Because of deceptive statements like this...."Timelessness is completely conceptual".....all language is conceptual....what you probably mean is that timelessness is hypothetical concept....iow, it is a concept to represent the hypothetical state of timelessness... So saying it is conceptual or hypothetical does not protect your belief from being challenged.

All things are conceptual, yes, but not all conceptual things have some corresponding physical existence. If my freezer is empty, I can say that there are non-popsicles in the freezer even though non-popsicles are purely conceptual. They are not an actual physical entity with properties that have any kind of effects in reality. Same thing with non-time or non-space. It's just a label for something that doesn't exist.

So what was time created from?

Why suppose that it was created from something else?

Ok then, my understanding is that what humans perceive as space, time, energy/matter, etc.,...are eternal aspects of the universe...ie..there never was no space, no time and no energy/matter.

It could be eternal, maybe, if there are an infinite succession of big bangs and big crunches or something like that. Still, even if there was only one Big Bang, there still never was such a thing as non-time, even if the universe has a finite age.

But if you insist on saying the universe had a beginning, it follows logically that there was a cause...so I ask you...why and how did universal existence come into being from the absence of universal existence?

Who knows? God could have done it, but if so, He didn't come before time either for the reasons I've stated before. If anything, His act of creation would have to have been simultaneous with the first instant of time.

 

[godnotgod]

Relativity disagrees. Time is every bit as fundamental an aspect of reality as space, matter and energy are.
There is no such thing as in "not-space-time", because space itself is necessary for the concept of "in" or "out". No space equals no in or out.

'In' and 'Out' are only relative to each other, and like you said: it is only a concept; in reality, there is no such in or out. What is necessary for space are solids. Without solids, there is no space, and vice-versa.

I understand Time to be a measurement of something. It is not an actual reality. A clock is one of the measuring instruments we use to determine duration of some movement or process. IOW, we are calling the measurement itself Time. It is not.

When I said 'not-Space/Time' I meant the state of things as they were at the moment of inception of the BB. As I understand the physics, Space-Time did not come into existence until the BB. Therefore, logically speaking, the BB had to have occurred in not-Space/Time.

If you strip time out of the equation then terms like present, future and past all become meaningless. You can't do that. Time is just as important as space is when understanding the universe.

Actually, it is an impediment to any real understanding of the Universe. All we get when Time, Space, and Causation are superimposed over the reality that is The Universe are facts and data. That is knowledge, not understanding. Having said that, we do 'understand' the mechanisms after awhile, but we fail to have a true understanding of what the nature of The Universe actually is, at least not via Science. Now, when I made the statement about the 'present', I was not referring the present as it relates to Time, but to Timelessness. IOW, when Time is stripped out, there is no past, present, or future in the linear sense as it relates to the ticking of the clock. Reality is not dependent upon the 'existence' of Time. It is still right here, right now, when Time is removed from the equation. It is only a concept, mistaken for reality. Once these concepts are removed, we then can see The Universe as it actually is, rather than via the conceptual models.

It is nonexistence by definition.

No, it is not. It is nothing, so how can it be non-existence? If it is truly nothing through and through, it is neither existence, nor non-existence. It is a negative-negative, a negation of negation. The concept of non-existence is still referring back to existence, which is 'something', this being a relative nothing. What I am referring to is an absolute nothing.

"Nonbeing and being are dialectically interdependent, relative terms. Nothing has usually been confused in the West with nonbeing, though in the east it is seen differently. Nonbeing is "parasitic" on being; it is a negative term deriving its meaning from the positive. But in the east, nothing is what gives meaning to the positive in the first place, as we shall see later.... Absolute nothingness is what is meant by "nothing" or "nothingness" or "no-thingness." Absolute nothingness is thus distinct from relative nothingness or mere nonbeing (which is, again, parasitic)."

http://alangullette.com/essays/philo/nothing.htm

In addition, the word in question is 'no-thing', which means that what we ordinarily see as 'things' which comprise the universe, are not really things at all. Upon closer examination, we see that all such 'things' are completely interrelated to all other 'things' and that all such things arise interdependently with one another. The Universe is not a collection of separate 'things' acting one upon another, but One Event occurring all at once. Therefore, its quality is 'no-thing-ness'.

 

[godnotgod]

All things are conceptual, yes, but not all conceptual things have some corresponding physical existence. If my freezer is empty, I can say that there are non-popsicles in the freezer even though non-popsicles are purely conceptual. They are not an actual physical entity with properties that have any kind of effects in reality. Same thing with non-time or non-space. It's just a label for something that doesn't exist.

I think your analogy is faulty, because, in the case of popsicles, we are dealing with relative values in Time and Space. But with the case of a condition where Time and Space are non-existent, we are dealing with an Absolute, and that absolute is Nothing. So when I earlier referred to not-Space/Time, I was referring to that condition or state in which no Time or Space were present. But even this statement is only conditional upon the idea that material 'reality' is real. Quantum Physics is fast showing us that it doesn't have much of either, if any. IOW, Time and Space (as well as Causation), are only valid if a material world is valid.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All things are conceptual, yes, but not all conceptual things have some corresponding physical existence. If my freezer is empty, I can say that there are non-popsicles in the freezer even though non-popsicles are purely conceptual. They are not an actual physical entity with properties that have any kind of effects in reality. Same thing with non-time or non-space. It's just a label for something that doesn't exist.

Why suppose that it was created from something else?

It could be eternal, maybe, if there are an infinite succession of big bangs and big crunches or something like that. Still, even if there was only one Big Bang, there still never was such a thing as non-time, even if the universe has a finite age.

Who knows? God could have done it, but if so, He didn't come before time either for the reasons I've stated before. If anything, His act of creation would have to have been simultaneous with the first instant of time.

We are near enough in agreement concerning nothingness as being a label for something that does not exist...

If it did not arise from something else...then that only leaves itself...in which case it does not make sense to say that the existence arose in existence 13.7 billion years ago...yes?

Concerning infinite succession of universal manifestation and dissolution, I agree this is a possibility...but not a one off finite universe..

And if God did it, since we agree that nothing does not exist...where is God located and from where did the time, space, energy/matter of the universe come?

 

[godnotgod]

And if God did it, since we agree that nothing does not exist...where is God located and from where did the time, space, energy/matter of the universe come?

​

(the very fact that nothing does not exist is nothing itself)

​

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok...same thing if it was Ceiling Cat...

 

[Thief]

I am presuming the researchers are referring to the big bang early universe when the galaxies were first being formed and distributed.....but though I am not a true believer, one needs to address these things in the context of their belief framework..

belief framework?.....as in Genesis?

I have no difficulty coordinating Genesis with science

 

[Parsimony]

I think your analogy is faulty, because, in the case of popsicles, we are dealing with relative values in Time and Space. But with the case of a condition where Time and Space are non-existent, we are dealing with an Absolute, and that absolute is Nothing. So when I earlier referred to not-Space/Time, I was referring to that condition or state in which no Time or Space were present. But even this statement is only conditional upon the idea that material 'reality' is real. Quantum Physics is fast showing us that it doesn't have much of either, if any. IOW, Time and Space (as well as Causation), are only valid if a material world is valid.

We are near enough in agreement concerning nothingness as being a label for something that does not exist...

If it did not arise from something else...then that only leaves itself...in which case it does not make sense to say that the existence arose in existence 13.7 billion years ago...yes?

Concerning infinite succession of universal manifestation and dissolution, I agree this is a possibility...but not a one off finite universe..

And if God did it, since we agree that nothing does not exist...where is God located and from where did the time, space, energy/matter of the universe come?

I can tell that a tedious quibble over semantics isn't going to get us anywhere. We are just going to have to agree to disagree,

 

[godnotgod]

I can tell that a tedious quibble over semantics isn't going to get us anywhere. We are just going to have to agree to disagree,

heh...heh...I am afraid the difference we are dealing with here is not trivial by any means, and NOT a matter of semantics, simply because my bottom line is that the BB was/is an event in Consciousness.