Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Ben Dhyan]

Was there ever non-existence because as Creator (Rev. 4:11) at Psalm 90:2 God always existed being from everlasting to everlasting

No reality of non-existence was ever.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The analogy is that for every point on earth it is possible to go south. But there is an exception at the South Pole. There is no south of the South Pole. There is no “southlessness”. Or isn’t “southless nonexistent”. It is simply that south cannot be defined there.

Time is the continuation of the 3D space/existence, south is a direction, oranges and apples!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The analogy is that for every point on earth it is possible to go south. But there is an exception at the South Pole. There is no south of the South Pole. There is no “southlessness”. It is simply that south cannot be defined there.

Do you have the same understanding as I do, that the reality represented by the concept of "no 'before the BB', is no time and no space?

 

[YoursTrue]

No telescope travels in time. Telescopes can detect light that has been traveling for long periods of time. That light carries information from when it started on ours journey.

But, no, no telescope can pick up information from before the point when the universe became transparent. That happened about 300000 years after the Big Bsng. No telescope or video (?) will be able to directly see anything before that.

That telescopes... Oh wait a minute. Can you back up your data in the 2nd paragraph?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That telescopes... Oh wait a minute. Can you back up your data in the 2nd paragraph?

He can back it up with math and present day observations that were predicted by that math. I know that there are some. I do believe that the relative amounts of hydrogen helium and lithium formed shortly after the Big Bang confirms the theory. In case you forgot theories and hypotheses make predictions and they can be tested by those predictions. If the predictions are wrong it means that there was something wrong about the prediction. If the prediction was right it confirms the hypothesis or theory but that does not "prove" the hypothesis or theory. There is no "proof" in science. But when a theory is right again and again and again we can have very strong trust that it is at the very least very accurate if not 100% accurate.

 

[YoursTrue]

He can back it up with math and present day observations that were predicted by that math. I know that there are some. I do believe that the relative amounts of hydrogen helium and lithium formed shortly after the Big Bang confirms the theory. In case you forgot theories and hypotheses make predictions and they can be tested by those predictions. If the predictions are wrong it means that there was something wrong about the prediction. If the prediction was right it confirms the hypothesis or theory but that does not "prove" the hypothesis or theory. There is no "proof" in science. But when a theory is right again and again and again we can have very strong trust that it is at the very least very accurate if not 100% accurate.

So far only his word and your word. About telescopes and time.

 

[Pogo]

So far only his word and your word. About telescopes and time.

And mine and anybody who is reasonably educated enough to understand the speed of light which has been measured and does not change with time.
There are no doubt some people in Afghanistan and Iran who disagree and even a few here and no doubt on the internet since you can find anything and everything there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far only his word and your word. About telescopes and time.

You could always try to Google search the concepts yourself. Here is a good question to ask:

What is the source of the Cosmic Background Radiation and how old is it?

You will find that it goes to about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. I gave a more accurate date to you in an earlier post of mine. Just ignore silly sources. And try to remember the concept of Non Overlapping Magisteria. In other words the sciences tell you how the heavens go and religion tells you how to get to heaven. The sciences tell you nothing about God. And God really does not tell you anything about the physical world.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you have the same understanding as I do, that the reality represented by the concept of "no 'before the BB', is no time and no space?

No, my understanding is that there was simply no before the BB, just like there is no south of the South Pole.

 

[Polymath257]

Time is the continuation of the 3D space/existence, south is a direction, oranges and apples!

Not so. The future is a direction in time and the past is the opposite direction.

 

[Polymath257]

That telescopes... Oh wait a minute. Can you back up your data in the 2nd paragraph?

Yes. The cosmic background radiation was formed when the universe cooled enough to become transparent. We can observe this radiation in all directions today. That is literally the earliest light we can possible detect.

Now, it might be possible in the future to detect the neutrino background, which was earlier, but that is pretty far from our current ability. We might also be able to detect gravitational waves from earlier, but again that is quite a bit beyond our current technology.

 

[Polymath257]

So far only his word and your word. About telescopes and time.

When you hear an echo, you are hearing the sound made in the past. When you see lightning and hear thunder a few seconds later, you are hearing the sound made in the past. This happens because it takes time for sound to travel.

It also takes time for light to travel. So, when we see light from the star Sirius, that light has taken about 10 years to travel to us. So we are seeing it as it was 10 years ago. If, instead, you look at the Andromeda spiral galaxy, the light took over 2 million years to travel that distance, so we see it as it was over 2 million years ago.

If you look at a galaxy far enough away, the light from that galaxy might take billions of years to travel to us. That means that we see that galaxy as it was billions of years ago.

This is not time travel. It is simply the fact that light doesn’t travel infinitely fast.

 

[McBell]

When you hear an echo, you are hearing the sound made in the past. When you see lightning and hear thunder a few seconds later, you are hearing the sound made in the past. This happens because it takes time for sound to travel.

It also takes time for light to travel. So, when we see light from the star Sirius, that light has taken about 10 years to travel to us. So we are seeing it as it was 10 years ago. If, instead, you look at the Andromeda spiral galaxy, the light took over 2 million years to travel that distance, so we see it as it was over 2 million years ago.

If you look at a galaxy far enough away, the light from that galaxy might take billions of years to travel to us. That means that we see that galaxy as it was billions of years ago.

This is not time travel. It is simply the fact that light doesn’t travel infinitely fast.

I half expect their reply to be along the lines of "What dark magic is this?! Burn the witch!"

 

[cladking]

The analogy is that for every point on earth it is possible to go south. But there is an exception at the South Pole. There is no south of the South Pole. There is no “southlessness”. It is simply that south cannot be defined there.

If there were a ten foot tall 4" diameter pipe to mark the exact south pole it would have some interesting characteristics. Perhaps most interesting is that since the axis of the earth's rotation is in the center you can't get to the south pole from there. You could walk around it in one direction and travel back to last week or further as you cross the International Date Line and then quickly return and go to next week, all the while never being able to see the south pole which is hidden inside your pipe. .Since the axis is a theoretical line it extends infinitely in each direction. It also encompasses the north pole since you can't have one without the other.

We start with premises and define things before reducing them but then we forget that our conclusions are dependent on the definitions. It's no more possible to travel to last week than it is to actually get to the south pole since we are three dimensional and it is one . Think of it this way; does one need to get his center of gravity on the south pole to have reached it or the center of his soul? Since the center of gravity is also "theoretical" it isn't possible in the real world to even get to the south pole which negates your contention that there can be no "south".

What is the center of the soul or the center of consciousness?

If you stood on the south pole you could see to the south if you had eyes in the back of your head or if you leaned back a little.

Of course no one thinks these considerations are important or relevant but they are still factual and so are the arguments of many who don't agree with us.


edited to add; Not only is the south pole moving relative a fixed point in space (big bang?) it is also moving relative the changing shape of the earth. A butterfly on alpha centauri will cause a little wobble and the tides of the moon create a huge wobble. It is affected by every object in the universe on a real time basis so is always a moving target.

 

[wellwisher]

When you hear an echo, you are hearing the sound made in the past. When you see lightning and hear thunder a few seconds later, you are hearing the sound made in the past. This happens because it takes time for sound to travel.

It also takes time for light to travel. So, when we see light from the star Sirius, that light has taken about 10 years to travel to us. So we are seeing it as it was 10 years ago. If, instead, you look at the Andromeda spiral galaxy, the light took over 2 million years to travel that distance, so we see it as it was over 2 million years ago.

If you look at a galaxy far enough away, the light from that galaxy might take billions of years to travel to us. That means that we see that galaxy as it was billions of years ago.

This is not time travel. It is simply the fact that light doesn’t travel infinitely fast.

That means the most distant objects we see in space represent the state of the earliest universe, not the current universe. How did all these oldest objects get all around us, if they should all have been clustered due to coming from a Big Bang singularity? That light should have past us almost immediately and maybe followed a curved path and is coming back as a second echo.

Water has an anomaly that may be similar. The oceans have a layer of water where the speed of sound in water is at a minimum. The speed of sound increase whether you go below or above that layer. It is called the SOFAR Channel or deep sound channel DSC. The SOFAR channel acts as a waveguide for sound, and low frequency sound waves within the channel may travel thousands of miles before dissipating. Whales often use this SOFAR Channel to communicate over hundred of miles under water; superconductor for low frequency sound waves. Space may have something similar for the echo.

If you look at space-time, space-time can curve and bend based on General Relativity; GR. Mass is the capacitance behind space-time. Einstein's theory of General Relativity makes space-time, mass and distance dependent. GR does not treat space-time like it can expand or contract by itself. Space-time is dependent on mass density and geometry.

The current science uses dark matter and dark energy, neither of which has been proven in the lab to be real, to skip over mass and GR and the dependence of space-time. That is an illusion of science; two unproven variables to supersede one proven theory; GR. Space-time is mass and distance dependent and does not move by itself.

In Special Relativity our space-time point of reference is a function of velocity. This reference does not reflect universal space-time changing but rather our perception of universal space-time changing.

If I was on a space-ship and could go the speed of light, the universe would appear to contract back to the Big Bang Singularity. The universe does obey my commands and actually contract. This is just my reference changing and fooling my eyes. If I put the brakes on, the universe would appear to expand like the Big Bang. It is not really expending, but is an artifact of my reference perception changing as my velocity slows down.

Say the you were on the BB singularity as it begins to expand, and you suddenly was propelled at the speed of light. General relativity, by the mass expanding would lead universal space-time to expand. Special relativity would make it appear like the expanding universe was not expanding, but remains a singularity. As you slow down, there would be the perception of a double expansion due to mass still spreading out; GR, and your SR base reference perception expanding due to slowing. We could call this double expansion, inflation.

If you were traveling at the speed of light. the universe will look like a point. If you were to slow to zero, in one hour, the universe will appear to expand 10 billion light years in an hour. That is a velocity reference illusion due to SR. The universe is not doing this.

A better model for the BB is not expansion from a singularity, but rather before the expansion, the singularity divides in place like a fertilized ovum, quantum dividing, again and again, lower mass density with space-time quantum expanding. It keeps on dividing until a critical size is reached connected to billions of galaxy level singularities.

Finally there is mini-Big Bang Phase, where all the singularities simultaneously expand like little big bangs. The powerful energy waves given off by all the cells, cause the galaxies cells to expand relative to each other, with the powerful energy pressure waves coming from all sides, keeping the material contacted for rapid galaxy and star development, as well as the formation of the central black holes. This model uses a blend of GR and SR, which could create galactic reference illusions, if you use the undivided singularity assumption.

 

[YoursTrue]

When you hear an echo, you are hearing the sound made in the past. When you see lightning and hear thunder a few seconds later, you are hearing the sound made in the past. This happens because it takes time for sound to travel.

It also takes time for light to travel. So, when we see light from the star Sirius, that light has taken about 10 years to travel to us. So we are seeing it as it was 10 years ago. If, instead, you look at the Andromeda spiral galaxy, the light took over 2 million years to travel that distance, so we see it as it was over 2 million years ago.

If you look at a galaxy far enough away, the light from that galaxy might take billions of years to travel to us. That means that we see that galaxy as it was billions of years ago.

This is not time travel. It is simply the fact that light doesn’t travel infinitely fast.

I was looking at definitions of light, something I have not explored before. It is very interesting, and of course, complex because there are terms that require further explanation as well as concepts.

 

[YoursTrue]

When you hear an echo, you are hearing the sound made in the past. When you see lightning and hear thunder a few seconds later, you are hearing the sound made in the past. This happens because it takes time for sound to travel.

It also takes time for light to travel. So, when we see light from the star Sirius, that light has taken about 10 years to travel to us. So we are seeing it as it was 10 years ago. If, instead, you look at the Andromeda spiral galaxy, the light took over 2 million years to travel that distance, so we see it as it was over 2 million years ago.

If you look at a galaxy far enough away, the light from that galaxy might take billions of years to travel to us. That means that we see that galaxy as it was billions of years ago.

This is not time travel. It is simply the fact that light doesn’t travel infinitely fast.

Thanks for that very nice explanation -- thinking about the echo -- interesting and thanks for that analogy. I really can't go beyond that.

 

[gnostic]

I was looking at definitions of light, something I have not explored before. It is very interesting, and of course, complex because there are terms that require further explanation as well as concepts.

i have tried to explain to you, in my past replies, about light from distant stars or galaxies, would take time to reach up, so what we observe now, eg Andromeda Galaxy, we are actually observing what Andromeda was like 2 million years ago.

You misunderstood my comment, thinking that I was talking about time travel. I wasn’t.

Time travel is science fiction.

What @Polymath257 have explained to you, is the actual natural phenomena of light and distance. It’s science and factual.

 

[YoursTrue]

i have tried to explain to you, in my past replies, about light from distant stars or galaxies, would take time to reach up, so what we observe now, eg Andromeda Galaxy, we are actually observing what Andromeda was like 2 million years ago.

You misunderstood my comment, thinking that I was talking about time travel. I wasn’t.

Time travel is science fiction.

What @Polymath257 have explained to you, is the actual natural phenomena of light and distance. It’s science and factual.

OK, thank you for that.

 

[YoursTrue]

i have tried to explain to you, in my past replies, about light from distant stars or galaxies, would take time to reach up, so what we observe now, eg Andromeda Galaxy, we are actually observing what Andromeda was like 2 million years ago.

You misunderstood my comment, thinking that I was talking about time travel. I wasn’t.

Time travel is science fiction.

What @Polymath257 have explained to you, is the actual natural phenomena of light and distance. It’s science and factual.

So when I said it is impossible to go back and "see" what happened millions of years ago, I'm going back to evolution. (the theory of) No videos, and really nothing to show the proposition without doubt. I do agree that plant life, for instance, happened BEFORE humans were on the earth. I also think the atmosphere changed on the earth so that life as we know it was enabled.