The Universe Always Was Existing

[nazz]

Having a "begining" to time is even more problematic if we apply the same logic. Neither is "obviously" wrong or correct due to our depth of ignorance on the subject. We have a hard time accurately defining time within the context of different scenarios and we know that time is not a steady constant as we would like to believe. Several things can change "time" ect.

For example it seems ludicrous to say that two objects have existed for the same amount of "time" but have different ages.

Perspective is key and fundamental when ever addressing time. There is no privileged perspective that we can talk from that would avoid us giving a very specific point of view. The argument that some have made about "if there is an infinite number of moments before now we would never have reached now" are trying to talk from two different perspectives. All we can talk about is "now". Nothing along the line of logic states that we cannot have an infinite amount of time before and behind us. We are not on a "track" of time. Anyone who thinks that we are must have groundbreaking evidence or are misguided in their understanding of what "time" is.

Said the domino that toppled in a chain reaction that never began

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Said the domino that toppled in a chain reaction that never began

Just as there is no "top" to the universe that we can define there is no "before" or "after". The best we can figure is that inflation will cause the universe to be so diluted or "stretched" that movement ceases and change stops. That would be the end of "time". Though again how we define "time" is drastically different in terms of physics than what we experience with our senses. Time can only be measured in comparisons.

 

[ArtieE]

Said the domino that toppled in a chain reaction that never began

Who sat up all the dominoes to begin with? Or did one domino turn into the next? And what did they stand on?

 

[idav]

Having a "begining" to time is even more problematic if we apply the same logic. Neither is "obviously" wrong or correct due to our depth of ignorance on the subject. We have a hard time accurately defining time within the context of different scenarios and we know that time is not a steady constant as we would like to believe. Several things can change "time" ect.

For example it seems ludicrous to say that two objects have existed for the same amount of "time" but have different ages.

Perspective is key and fundamental when ever addressing time. There is no privileged perspective that we can talk from that would avoid us giving a very specific point of view. The argument that some have made about "if there is an infinite number of moments before now we would never have reached now" are trying to talk from two different perspectives. All we can talk about is "now". Nothing along the line of logic states that we cannot have an infinite amount of time before and behind us. We are not on a "track" of time. Anyone who thinks that we are must have groundbreaking evidence or are misguided in their understanding of what "time" is.

To go backwards infinitely, there would/could never be a now. The only reason we can say there is a now, is in relation to time and to time having a beginning. Going backwards in time in a linear fashion infinitely with no end means there is never a beginning for our time to traverse through. Even science says there is a beginning of time as we are used to it so it doesn't seem in the same level of absurdity as infinite regression.

 

[nazz]

Who sat up all the dominoes to begin with? Or did one domino turn into the next? And what did they stand on?

do you understand what a metaphor is?

 

[ArtieE]

do you understand what a metaphor is?

Sure. And what are the answers to my questions using the same metaphor?

 

[shawn001]

Of course thy mistakenly used the term explosion but.

What happened before the beginning?

Every cosmologist and astronomer agrees: our Universe is 13.7 billion years old. Using cutting-edge technology, scientists are now able to take a snapshot of the Universe a mere heartbeat after its birth. Armed with hypersensitive satellites, astronomers look back in time to the very moment of creation, when all the matter in the Universe exploded into existence. It is here that we uncover an unsolved mystery as old as time itself — if the Universe was born, where did it come from? Meet the leading scientists who have now discovered what they believe to be the origin of our Universe, and a window into the time before time.


What happened before the beginning?(2010) - Video Dailymotion

 

[shawn001]

I am very interested in the work of Paul Steinhardt in the above video.

Paul J. Steinhardt is the Albert Einstein Professor of Science at Princeton University and a professor of theoretical physics. He is part of the brane theory of theoretical physicists.

 

[Leandro Piva]

Excuse me for suddenly entering the conversation.

As far as I know, time is not an universal law. Time is a way that we humans have to sort occurrences perceived by our senses, relying on things like Earth's orbit around the sun – that occurs every 365 days or so. There is not any event prior to the Big Bang that we can measure. Then, we can infer that there was no time before the Big Bang. No need for supernatural causes or infinite recurrings.

Correct me if I'm wrong. And I think I am.

 

[viole]

While it isn't incorrect to say that, since you cannot measure time from something timeless, I am curious on whether or not you believe in the expansion of the universe, if so, how does it not contradict?

Yeah, it does not make much sense, does it?

To speak of spacetime expansion is physically meaningless. Giving a special and different ontology to space and time is equally physically meaningless.

According to which clocks and space should the rate of this expansion be measured?

Spacetime, and the universe, simply are. No expansion, no beginning, no end, no change at all.

What we see is what looks like expansion of space. But i prefer to think that we are free falling towards regions of the universe with vaster space extension. A bit like falling into a funnel. Does the funnel expand?

Cio

- viole

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

How can it exist without time or space? It takes up space, so it implies space.

There is no more space today than before the big bang. The space that existed as a singularity is expanding. It is not matter moving away from a focus. It is matter attached to space and the space is expanding.

 

[shawn001]

Yeah, it does not make much sense, does it?

To speak of spacetime expansion is physically meaningless. Giving a special and different ontology to space and time is equally physically meaningless.

According to which clocks and space should the rate of this expansion be measured?

Spacetime, and the universe, simply are. No expansion, no beginning, no end, no change at all.

What we see is what looks like expansion of space. But i prefer to think that we are free falling towards regions of the universe with vaster space extension. A bit like falling into a funnel. Does the funnel expand?

Cio

- viole

This is a current and pretty good article on it all. But you are way off on the actual science and observations.

What Is the Big Bang Theory? | Space.com

What Is the Big Bang Theory? | Space.com

There also maybe multiverses.

 

[viole]

This is a current and pretty good article on it all. But you are way off on the actual science and observations.

What Is the Big Bang Theory? | Space.com

There also maybe multiverses.

Well, i know what the BB is. It is that bright point on the far left of your avatar. The rest of that shape looking like a bell is time space, or a two dimensional representation thereof.

Do you think it is expanding? Maybe some sections of it might become bigger as you move to the left, but that is a far cry from saying that the whole of the picture is expanding. It isn't.

The size and shape of these sections depend only on the observer: it is the set of points identifying their present. For some observers the "beginning" might be much closer in time to their present than to us. It could be one second, or 6,000 years (lol) depending on hes state of motion.

Nobody is right because there is no beginnings really, just locations on a 4 dimensional surface in which distances between points are measured not by time alone.

So, if the BB is the beginning of the universe, in the same way the north pole is the beginning of the earth. Or, if the universe is expanding, then the earth is expanding too as we approach its equator.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shawn001]

Well, i know what the BB is. It is that bright point on the far left of your avatar. The rest of that shape looking like a bell is time space, or a two dimensional representation thereof.

Do you think it is expanding? Maybe some sections of it might become bigger as you move to the left, but that is a far cry from saying that the whole of the picture is expanding. It isn't.

The size and shape of these sections depend only on the observer: it is the set of points identifying their present. For some observers the "beginning" might be much closer in time to their present than to us. It could be one second, or 6,000 years (lol) depending on hes state of motion.

Nobody is right because there is no beginnings really, just locations on a 4 dimensional surface in which distances between points are measured not by time alone.

So, if the BB is the beginning of the universe, in the same way the north pole is the beginning of the earth. Or, if the universe is expanding, then the earth is expanding too as we approach its equator.

Ciao

- viole

Did you read the article I posted? Explaining it all.

The BB theory is only the universe was very hot and dense in the past.

"Do you think it is expanding?"

We have known and have had proof of that for a very long time now, In the late 1920's Edward Hubble proved it. In fact now we knows its accelerating faster then light. But think of it as stretching and carrying the galaxies along with it.

the bright point is a singularity.

"but that is a far cry from saying that the whole of the picture is expanding. It isn't."

again we know for a fact it is and in all directions uniformly.

Do you know how we can measure time with the speed of light?

We know the universe is 13.82 billion years old with a margin of error of less then 1%.

You don't study or know about any of this do you?

You actually don't know what the bb theory is at all or the history to it from your posts.

 

[shawn001]

Viole

The big Bang theory itself states the universe was extremely hot and dense in the past. That is the theory and we have extremely strong evidence for it including a lot of pictures of it from the remnant light left over called the CMB. Look at this website

Timeline of the Universe Image

Then we sent a better satellite to make measurements. The Planck Satellite and they are going through that data now and have been.

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe / Planck / Space ..

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA

We could go back in time to it to the Planck time scale a trillion of a trillion of a trillion of a second, but then physics and math breakdown.

So They believe this was a singularity. But we still don't know that yet for a fact, but this helps support it.

However we could only see back to 380,000 years after the bang, because we couldn't see past the "surface of last scatter"

"When WMAP observes the microwave background sky it looks back to when there were free electrons that could readily scatter cosmic background radiation. This cosmic background "cloud surface" is called the "surface of last scatter". If there were any "features" imprinted in this surface of last scatter (i.e.- regions that were brighter or dimmer than average) they will remain imprinted to this day because emitted light travels across the universe largely unimpeded."

So this was 375,000 years after inflation.

"375,000 years after inflation and has traversed the universe largely unimpeded since then. The conditions of earlier times are imprinted on this light; it also forms a backlight for later developments of the universe."

This new discovery if confirmed and its looking good, supports inflation theory, but it also then allows us to go back further then the CMB and last light scatter.


"Almost 14 billion years ago, the universe we inhabit burst into existence in an extraordinary event that initiated the Big Bang. In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded exponentially, stretching far beyond the view of today's best telescopes. All this, of course, has just been theory.

Researchers from the BICEP2 collaboration today announced the first direct evidence supporting this theory, known as "cosmic inflation." Their data also represent the first images of gravitational waves, or ripples in space-time. These waves have been described as the "first tremors of the Big Bang." Finally, the data confirm a deep connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity."

New evidence supports Stanford physicist's theory of how universe began


I also want to point out the galaxies are being dragged along with space "stretching"

Also point out the space is still expanding faster then light.

The galaxies are not winging out into the universe in all directions, space itself is dragging them in all directions.

Another important aspect of this discovery is the quest for cosmology on the big scale to work out with quantum mechanics on the very small scale this has been a major goal for awhile now, between cosmologists and QM scientists.

Professor Andrei Linde spent 30 years of his life on it and is the founder of the theory for Inflation.

Of course you know who Albert Einstein was and his contributions along with Edward Hubble, and "Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic Priest, was the originator of what would become known as the "Big Bang Theory".

The evidence for the Big Bang theory itself is as strong as evolution of life on Earth.

If you want to argue cosmology with Albert Einstein, Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, Edward Hubble, Stephen Hawkings, Leonard Susskind, and thousands of other major scientists all the way back to Newton and Gallieo and I am missing a lot in the list. Good luck with that and left me know how it turns out.

 

[viole]

Did you read the article I posted? Explaining it all.

The BB theory is only the universe was very hot and dense in the past.

"Do you think it is expanding?"

We have known and have had proof of that for a very long time now, In the late 1920's Edward Hubble proved it. In fact now we knows its accelerating faster then light. But think of it as stretching and carrying the galaxies along with it.

the bright point is a singularity.

"but that is a far cry from saying that the whole of the picture is expanding. It isn't."

again we know for a fact it is and in all directions uniformly.

Do you know how we can measure time with the speed of light?

We know the universe is 13.82 billion years old with a margin of error of less then 1%.

You don't study or know about any of this do you?

You actually don't know what the bb theory is at all or the history to it from your posts.

Well, I do not use tensed verbs to identify events in spacetime. I would say the BB IS very hot and dense at a certain location of spacetime that we call past.

We should think of spacetime as a geometric surface on which events are mapped. In a sense all these events of our past are "still" there, whereas the events of our future are "already" there. This is the picture we get from relativity.

Technically, spacetime is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Which means, it is a surface in which the distance square between two points can be negative.

Time is an illusion, albeit a stubborn one, as Einstein said.

As such, spacetime is not expanding at all. Unless you can provide a way to measure the rate of expansion of spacetime. Is, for instance, time expanding too. At what rate? Three seconds per second? Or more?

I don't think I am not arguing with Einstein, as if i accepted things on authority...i think you are arguing with him.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Well, I do not use tensed verbs to identify events in spacetime. I would say the BB IS very hot and dense at a certain location of spacetime that we call past.

We should think of spacetime as a geometric surface on which events are mapped. In a sense all these events of our past are "still" there, whereas the events of our future are "already" there. This is the picture we get from relativity.

Technically, spacetime is a pseudo-Lorentzian manifold. Which means, it is a surface in which the distance between two points can be negative.

Time is an illusion, albeit a stubborn one, as Einstein said.

As such, spacetime is not expanding at all. Unless you can provide a way to measure the rate of expansion of spacetime. Is, for instance, time expanding too. At what rate? Three seconds per second? Or more?

I don't think I am not arguing with Einstein, as if i accepted things on authority...i think you are arguing with him.

Ciao

- viole

Time is in the space dimension. Warp space which creates the orbits you also warp time which creates dilation. Because spacetime is directly related to energy.

 

[shawn001]

Well, I do not use tensed verbs to identify events in spacetime. I would say the BB IS very hot and dense at a certain location of spacetime that we call past.

We should think of spacetime as a geometric surface on which events are mapped. In a sense all these events of our past are "still" there, whereas the events of our future are "already" there. This is the picture we get from relativity.

Technically, spacetime is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Which means, it is a surface in which the distance square between two points can be negative.

Time is an illusion, albeit a stubborn one, as Einstein said.

As such, spacetime is not expanding at all. Unless you can provide a way to measure the rate of expansion of spacetime. Is, for instance, time expanding too. At what rate? Three seconds per second? Or more?

I don't think I am not arguing with Einstein, as if i accepted things on authority...i think you are arguing with him.

Ciao

- viole

Your arguing against all cosmology and astronomy.

So Edward Hubble didn't discover the expansion of the universe in the late 1920'2?


Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever

"The universe just got a new speeding ticket.

The most precise measurement ever made of the speed of the universe's expansion is in, thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."

Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever | Hubble Constant | Spitzer | Space.com

 

[viole]

Your arguing against all cosmology and astronomy.

So Edward Hubble didn't discover the expansion of the universe in the late 1920'2?


Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever

"The universe just got a new speeding ticket.

The most precise measurement ever made of the speed of the universe's expansion is in, thanks to NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, and it's a doozy. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years)."

I would take a close look at the videos on the OP of the thread "special relativity negates free will" on this section of the forum (next page, I guess). There you will see what i mean.

You will also see that my views are much closer to relativity and science than yours, I am afraid.

The problem here is that you seem to be anchored to the outdated A-theory of time, aka presentism. This view, held mainly by theologians like WL Craig, postulates that events of the past are gone forever, events of the future are not here yet, and only our present counts. When you use tensed verbs like "the BB happenED" or "the Universe WAS smaller" you sound more like a theologian (or a Newtonian scientist) rather than a (relativistic) scientist .

So, when you hear these statements in popular magazines for the general audience, you should make the correct translation for yourself, if you want to make relativistic sense of what they claim.

In my view, past present and future exist eternally. Actually, they do not exist, either, only a spacetime punctuated with events exist eternally. Dinosaurs, big bangs, our birth, our death exist. They do not disappear/appear magically from/into spacetime: how could they?

Hubble discovered that space ( not spacetime) expands. But this is because spacetime has this shape and the geodesics we follow point towards regions with vaster space extension.

You speak of parsecs and seconds forgetting that space and time, when taken separately, have no absolute physical meaning. Change your state of motion and your expansion will proceed at different rates. Go fast enough and it will tend to stop. For a photon, there is no expansion of space, either, and the BB could be in its present.

So, how can you make sense of things whose measurements depends on equally valid observers?

My universe is your avatar picture. Gets bigger while moving to the right. But that bell looking shape is eternal, it is not subject to any dynamics whatsoever. And it could not be otherwise, since we can talk of (relative) dynamics only within its own context.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shawn001]

I would take a close look at the videos on the OP of the thread "special relativity negates free will" on this section of the forum (next page, I guess). There you will see what i mean.

You will also see that my views are much closer to relativity and science than yours, I am afraid.

The problem here is that you seem to be anchored to the outdated A-theory of time, aka presentism. This view, held mainly by theologians like WL Craig, postulates that events of the past are gone forever, events of the future are not here yet, and only our present counts. When you use tensed verbs like "the BB happenED" or "the Universe WAS smaller" you sound more like a theologian (or a Newtonian scientist) rather than a (relativistic) scientist .

So, when you hear these statements in popular magazines for the general audience, you should make the correct translation for yourself, if you want to make relativistic sense of what they claim.

In my view, past present and future exist eternally. Actually, they do not exist, either, only a spacetime punctuated with events exist eternally. Dinosaurs, big bangs, our birth, our death exist. They do not disappear/appear magically from/into spacetime: how could they?

Hubble discovered that space ( not spacetime) expands. But this is because spacetime has this shape and the geodesics we follow point towards regions with vaster space extension.

You speak of parsecs and seconds forgetting that space and time, when taken separately, have no absolute physical meaning. Change your state of motion and your expansion will proceed at different rates. Go fast enough and it will tend to stop. For a photon, there is no expansion of space, either, and the BB could be in its present.

So, how can you make sense of things whose measurements depends on equally valid observers?

My universe is your avatar picture. Gets bigger while moving to the right. But that bell looking shape is eternal, it is not subject to any dynamics whatsoever. And it could not be otherwise, since we can talk of (relative) dynamics only within its own context.

Ciao

- viole

First you don't know my thoughts on time or spacetime.

I will asked again

"So Edward Hubble didn't discover the expansion of the universe in the late 1920'2?"

You CAN"T have a static universe.