Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, please do try and understand, the mass of the universe is an integral of the infinite universe, and thus is also infinite. Since we agree there is no 'non-existence', the universe must be infinite and eternal, so there could be no beginning, and the mass will never change.

So how was this total energy of the universe measured or is it just a conceptualization by someone ignorant of actual reality?

You keep stating things as if they are facts when they are not. You have no clue if the universe is infinite or not, And you keep forgetting what the total energy of the universe has been measured to be. Twice. By different methods. The universe may not be infinite. I do not know of any evidence for an infinite universe. All that you have are rather bad hand waving arguments for your claims to date.

Just to see if you have been paying attention, what is the measured total energy of the universe?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You keep stating things as if they are facts when they are not. You have no clue if the universe is infinite or not, And you keep forgetting what the total energy of the universe has been measured to be. Twice. By different methods. The universe may not be infinite. I do not know of any evidence for an infinite universe. All that you have are rather bad hand waving arguments for your claims to date.

Just to see if you have been paying attention, what is the measured total energy of the universe?

It is a fact, for the alternative to an infinite universe is this local BB being akin to a sphere of existence within nonexistence, and we agree that nonexistence in the absolute sense is impossible.

So any talk of measuring the total energy of the infinite universe cannot be taken seriously by the wise, the energy of all existence is infinite, and the mass is infinite.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Several errors. The universe does not expand "into" anything. You are using Newtonian physics where it does not apply again. The expansion of space was just an expansion. As far as we can tell space is its own entity that does not expand into anything. The universe may have been infinitely large at the time of the Big Bang, it may not have been. It is possible that it curved in on itself. And what you do not seem to understand is that the mere existence of physical laws means that there never was "nothing". Physical laws are something. So even if there was "no mass" and "no space" and "no time" and even "no energy" there still would have been physical laws which are "something".

"So far as we know....", you mean you believe, you don't know because it is an absurd concept for the BB space bubble not to expand into anything, for nothing does not exist. Consider what you are saying, the BB universe space bubble is expanding, but it is not expanding into anything. When you say "it does not expand into any-thing", it is the same as saying it is expanding in no-thing. The concept of "not anything" is the same as the concept of "nothing".

Do you understand, reality is on the other side of conceptualizations, you must always go beyond the concept, to the reality the concept is meant to represent, otherwise you will be deceived. I am not deceiving you, think about it and you will see I am correct.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, please do try and understand, the mass of the universe is an integral of the infinite universe, and thus is also infinite. Since we agree there is no 'non-existence', the universe must be infinite and eternal, so there could be no beginning, and the mass will never change.

So how was this total energy of the universe measured or is it just a conceptualization by someone ignorant of actual reality?

Oh please, tell us what "an integral" is in this situation?
We would like to be able to calculate it if you could help us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"So far as we know....", you mean you believe, you don't know because it is an absurd concept for the BB space bubble not to expand into anything, for nothing does not exist. Consider what you are saying, the BB universe space bubble is expanding, but it is not expanding into anything. When you say "it does not expand into any-thing", it is the same as saying it is expanding in no-thing. The concept of "not anything" is the same as the concept of "nothing".

Do you understand, reality is on the other side of conceptualizations, you must always go beyond the concept, to the reality the concept is meant to represent, otherwise you will be deceived. I am not deceiving you, think about it and you will see I am correct.

No, why do you insist that space has to expand into something?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh please, tell us what "an integral" is in this situation?
We would like to be able to calculate it if you could help us.

He is stuck in a Newtonian universe even though it has been known for quite some time that Newtonian physics fails on the scales of the very small and the very large.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An integral means it is fundamental to the universe, it is not separate from the universe.

The universe is infinite, therefore it follows logically that the mass and energy are also infinite.

 

[Pogo]

An integral means it is fundamental to the universe, it is not separate from the universe.

The universe is infinite, therefore it follows logically that the mass and energy are also infinite.

No, the universe is infinite is an assertion without evidence and an infinite series can be finite and an integral is not the same as integral.
I know it all sounds good to you, but it is word salad to most people.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, why do you insist that space has to expand into something?

Because if it is not expanding into something, it is expanding into nothing, and nothing does not exist.

Can you confirm, you do believe the universe is expanding, yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, the universe is infinite is an assertion without evidence and an infinite series can be finite and an integral is not the same as integral.
I know it all sounds good to you, but it is word salad to most people.

Leave it to SZ, he at least acknowledges there is no nothing. Or perhaps you are also, are you aware that non-existence does not exist anywhere in time or space, if not, then imagine the reality represented by the concept of nonexistence, aka nothing, and please describe it to me?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

He is stuck in a Newtonian universe even though it has been known for quite some time that Newtonian physics fails on the scales of the very small and the very large.

Newtonian physics has its place, but yes, when we get to the reality of the infinitesimal and infinite scales, we are now transcending finite physics, so it is time to leave the class room of the finite and enter into understanding of the infinite.

"Big fleas, have little fleas,
On their backs that bitum,
And these little fleas, have even littler fleas,
Ans so on ad infinitum."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Newtonian physics has its place, but yes, when we get to the reality of the infinitesimal and infinite scales, we are now transcending finite physics, so it is time to leave the class room of the finite and enter into understanding of the infinite.

"Big fleas, have little fleas,
On their backs that bitum,
And these little fleas, have even littler fleas,
Ans so on ad infinitum."

Then you should follow your own advice.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?
Cherry picking from page-1

There are some compelling hypothesis but there is no theory (though some hypothesis are misnamed theories).
If time, space and matter were created at the same time, there is no "before" the Big Bang. And "always" is at every time. The universe always existed in that case.
If there was time before the Big Bang, the energy of the universe could still have existed, either as an eternal singularity or in a previous universe. Our known universe would then be a different state or instantiation.
The eternal singularity has seemingly the same problem as your question. It arises from the unintuitive nature of infinities. Why is there a zero if there are infinite negative numbers?

The universe is eternal, but cyclical. BB it is born. It lives. Big Crunch it dies and BB born anew.

IF a person claims/knows "the world always existed/exists" THEN this person always existed/exists

Because it couldn't exist unless G-d had created it, right, please?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Because it couldn't exist unless G-d had created it, right, please?

whether the universe is finite or eternal, which we really don’t know, especially with the limitations of our current understanding and current technology , none of which, in any way demonstrates the existence of God, nor that of creating anything.

Your question is only suggesting your personal belief or opinion on your own superstition. Nothing more, nothing less.

nothing in those 3 posts you have quoted, say anything about God. You are just making an assumption.

Superstition isn’t knowledge…it is just ignorance in supernatural causation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?
Cherry picking from page-1



Because it couldn't exist unless G-d had created it, right, please?

Regards

No. You do not get to assume that a god exists. Why would you make that assumption?

 

[gnostic]

Because if it is not expanding into something, it is expanding into nothing, and nothing does not exist.

Can you confirm, you do believe the universe is expanding, yes?

There was an analogy of balloon to the BB.

if you only focus on the surface area of the balloon, you would notice that balloon deflated of air, will have small surface area. By slowly balloon with air, the surface area will slowly increase. It will double from its original size, triple, quadruple, etc, the surface area of the balloon will also increase, as it being inflated.

The balloon expanded, as it was being inflated. Sure, the inflating balloon will take up some space around the balloon, but I just wanted you to only focus on the balloon itself. The balloon will expand or contract, as it being inflated or deflated, respectively. It size and shape will increase or decrease.

Now, imagine the universe being like a balloon in the above analogy. The size of the universe will expand or contract. The Big Bang theory is just focusing on the observable universe, not whatever outside of the observations.

Unlike the universe, the balloon has critical limits as to the size it can reach, so the balloon will pop. There are still a lot of mysteries about the universe, things we don’t know about, nor understand.

We don’t if the universe have any limit. It might continually expand infinitely. Or it might one day start to contract, thereby the universe would collapse upon itself. We simply don’t know.

While the technology, like the Voyager 1 & 2, Hubble, WMAP, Planck, JWST, etc, provide us with enormous numbers of discoveries , and providing insights about universe, these technologies all have their limits, so it often come with more questions than answers.

Your assertions that the universe must expand either to “something”, or to “nothing”, is one of those questions that are outside the scope of the Big Bang theory…and not really relevant, especially when you considered that the universe is expanding faster than what our limited technology can observe.

Meaning, if we don’t build even better technology than the JWST, then the very distant galaxies that we can observe today with the JWST, might not be there 20 or 50 years from now, because the expansion of the universe will push these galaxies beyond our sight.

while the universe appears to have no limits (for expansion), there are limits to our technology.

 

[Brian2]

No. You do not get to assume that a god exists. Why would you make that assumption?

@paarsurrey can assume that when others assume that no gods exist until they are proven to exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@paarsurrey can assume that when others assume that no gods exist until they are proven to exist.

Context matters. Try again.

 

[gnostic]

An integral means it is fundamental to the universe, it is not separate from the universe.

The universe is infinite, therefore it follows logically that the mass and energy are also infinite.

That assertion or assumption haven’t been tested and verified…yet.

Until it has been tested & verified, such assumption is just speculation.

Mass & energy are dependent on the Universe itself.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Because if it is not expanding into something, it is expanding into nothing, and nothing does not exist.

Can you confirm, you do believe the universe is expanding, yes?

The problem here is, we know galaxies are moving away from each other, and we know this process appears to be isotropic, but we don’t really know the full extent of the implications of this. The standard model of cosmology is incomplete, and there is no consensus about whatever temporal or spatial boundaries the universe may have. Even the word ‘universe’ is ambiguous; to a philosopher it generally means the totality of everything, to a cosmologist it means the observable the universe, the limitations of which are defined (but not conclusively) by Special Relativity.

No one knows, in other words, if the universe is infinite or not, nor if any infinity exists except as an abstraction.