Was the big bang creation or evolution?

[viole]

No it's not. Evolution is a biological process. It has nothing to do with the formation of the universe

Not so fast.

There are cosmologists who postulate that Universes are subject to a process of natural selection. For instance, if Universes are spawned by black holes then it is obvious that Universes with black holes will propagate this property to other Universes. The others will simply fizzle out of existence. That is, most Universe will eventually have black holes.

Change and natural selection are principles which are not necessarily restricted to biology only.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Its relevant to the fact that everything defaulted first at the high energy rate. We see time cause we are made of matter and energy.

I have no idea what you are saying. What do you mean with "defaulted first at the high energy rate"? More specific please.

And when you say "first" you are implicitly assuming a well defined time context. How can that be if time requires a pre-existing Universe in order to make sense?

And way "matter and energy"? They are the same thing. Why not simply "energy"?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

I have no idea what you are saying. What do you mean with "defaulted first at the high energy rate"? More specific please.

And when you say "first" you are implicitly assuming a well defined time context. How can that be if time requires a pre-existing Universe in order to make sense?

And way "matter and energy"? They are the same thing. Why not simply "energy"?

Ciao

- viole

High energies are subject to time dilation in the way we are subject to gravity based on mass.

 

[viole]

High energies are subject to time dilation in the way we are subject to gravity based on mass.

But mass = energy. Are we subject to time dilation, too?

On the other hand, a simple photon has much less energy than yourself. Which, by your logic, would imply that you have more time dilation than a photon.

Do you believe that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Not so fast.

There are cosmologists who postulate that Universes are subject to a process of natural selection. For instance, if Universes are spawned by black holes then it is obvious that Universes with black holes will propagate this property to other Universes. The others will simply fizzle out of existence. That is, most Universe will eventually have black holes.

Change and natural selection are principles which are not necessarily restricted to biology only.

Ciao

- viole

I was actually surprised that the first definition of evolution used the biological evolution when I looked it up, the second definition fitting better with an universe that has evolved.

 

[idav]

But mass = energy. Are we subject to time dilation, too?

On the other hand, a simple photon has much less energy than yourself. Which, by your logic, would imply that you have more time dilation than a photon.

Do you believe that?

Ciao

- viole

Well its mass or velocity. We dont have the mass or velocity. But our macro world does not us specifically.

 

[viole]

Well its mass or velocity. We dont have the mass or velocity. But our macro world does not us specifically.

We all have the same velocity. We all run at the speed of light in time space. This is actually the only "velocity" everybody can have.

Ciao

- viole

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Was the big bang creation or evolution?

After reading most of the posts in this thread, I've decided they add very little to the question.

Might I suggest you frame your question such as "was the big bang natural or supernatural?"

That might avoid all this confusion that is getting away at what i think you are asking. "Evo-lution' literal means "unroll" It is the unrolling of something. In this sense it essentially means change. Change implies time. All of this discussion really is BESIDE THE POINT.

Time is a dimension of the universe. Physics does not (yet) provide us the language, understanding, concept, to discuss time or change outside the context of the universe, or even at what we currently perceive as the 'beginning.'

Simple rule, any time you are framing a question or response, ask your self if you can replace some of the words or concepts with the concepts of natural or supernatural. That generally gets the the center (and end) of all these questions.

 

[idav]

We all have the same velocity. We all run at the speed of light in time space. This is actually the only "velocity" everybody can have.

Ciao

- viole

Yes but not from our perspective, we are trapped in time.

 

[idav]

It is remarkable that we can be outside of time at the micro level but not at our level of perception.

 

[idav]

After reading most of the posts in this thread, I've decided they add very little to the question.

Might I suggest you frame your question such as "was the big bang natural or supernatural?"

That might avoid all this confusion that is getting away at what i think you are asking. "Evo-lution' literal means "unroll" It is the unrolling of something. In this sense it essentially means change. Change implies time. All of this discussion really is BESIDE THE POINT.

Time is a dimension of the universe. Physics does not (yet) provide us the language, understanding, concept, to discuss time or change outside the context of the universe, or even at what we currently perceive as the 'beginning.'

Simple rule, any time you are framing a question or response, ask your self if you can replace some of the words or concepts with the concepts of natural or supernatural. That generally gets the the center (and end) of all these questions.

I think natural/unnatural might have worked. I thought evolution, should just said change, and creation to be straightforward enough. Creationists love to point out the bb is the beginning and that's where the discussion goes astray, with time no longer being a factor, bb may have even lived the moments before actually doing anything.

 

[Iti oj]

After reading most of the posts in this thread, I've decided they add very little to the question.

Might I suggest you frame your question such as "was the big bang natural or supernatural?"

That might avoid all this confusion that is getting away at what i think you are asking. "Evo-lution' literal means "unroll" It is the unrolling of something. In this sense it essentially means change. Change implies time. All of this discussion really is BESIDE THE POINT.

Time is a dimension of the universe. Physics does not (yet) provide us the language, understanding, concept, to discuss time or change outside the context of the universe, or even at what we currently perceive as the 'beginning.'

Simple rule, any time you are framing a question or response, ask your self if you can replace some of the words or concepts with the concepts of natural or supernatural. That generally gets the the center (and end) of all these questions.

this, plus 1. I think this was out house issue to, I decided to treat the question that way after a quick pendant post.

 

[Iti oj]

Yes but not from our perspective, we are trapped in time.

Every thing is in time, even photons, remember my example last night? Also good morning.

 

[idav]

Every thing is in time, even photons, remember my example last night? Also good morning.

Good morning. But it is as if time increases or decreases in intensity based on mass or velocity. When you did the time dilation, you decreased speed when you should increase it , which is what I meant when I said you went the wrong way.

 

[Iti oj]

Not so fast.

There are cosmologists who postulate that Universes are subject to a process of natural selection. For instance, if Universes are spawned by black holes then it is obvious that Universes with black holes will propagate this property to other Universes. The others will simply fizzle out of existence. That is, most Universe will eventually have black holes.

Change and natural selection are principles which are not necessarily restricted to biology only.

Ciao

- viole

Let's not confuse and give the creationist ammunition. Do universes have hereditary trait's? Not that we know of.

 

[Iti oj]

Good morning. But it is as if time increases or decreases in intensity based on mass or velocity. When you did the time dilation, you decreased speed when you should increase it , which is what I meant when I said you went the wrong way.

I'm sorry can you quote where I did that, I'm but quit sure what your trying to say.

 

[viole]

Time is a dimension of the universe. Physics does not (yet) provide us the language, understanding, concept, to discuss time or change outside the context of the universe, or even at what we currently perceive as the 'beginning.'

It does not need to. There is no change outside the context of the Universe. There is no change for the Universe as a whole. either. No beginning, no expansion, no death, no dynamics whatsoever. And it cannot be otherwise if we consider that dynamics involves changes in space during time. And both things are contained in the Universe. They do not exist externally to it.

What we call expansion of the universe is actually expansion of space in time. But time space itself, as a whole, does not expand. How could it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Iti oj]

What does time measure? How do we measure time?

 

[idav]

Why wouldn't it? Time only passes because things have velocity. If the universe dies in a big freeze then time stops and you have "eternity" which is the lack of time.

Actually its time passes because we lack velocity. As the universe dies time gets more aggressive and would age quicker, not be eternal like in the state of high energy.

The amount of velocity dictates the experience of time, as I demonstrated with my example.

Yes but you went the other way.

There was a really good example when looking at the death of the universe instead of the beginning.

 

[Iti oj]

There was a really good example when looking at the death of the universe instead of the beginning.

In that example it's wasn't slow but completly stopped. The universes velocity was zero. Do you see the difference?