The Instigator
BDPershing
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GarretKadeDupre
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Theory: How the our universe came to be 3.0

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 488 times Debate No: 67997
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

BDPershing

Pro

since last one was me vs troll, I'll be making this impossible to accept. Opponent's goal would be to provide adequate evidence that this "theory" is impossible.

Theory:
an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.

Were going to keep it in the logical field, were not diving into the imaginary realm/space which is not bound with the laws of reality, numbers, letters, definitions, individuality, time, matter, and logic.

Were going to stick to "our" universe, after exploring the imaginary space and find a rational explanation how the multiverse came to be i'll add it, but till then we should stick to our dimension, aka, universe.

when I speak of dimension it normally refer to it as a universe.

How our universe was created, Chronological order:
1. Multiverse
2. _____ star(unknown size) collapsing into a black hole, from one of these universes from multiverse.
3. Causing space rip into the unknown spaces between dimensions
4. Due to everything have a polar opposite the collapse into a single point, ripping the space fabric, causing the inverse of collapsing to a singular point in one dimension making a big bang in another creating the space later becoming a universe.
5. The violence of spilling threw this space rip causes the particles that were ripped apart when pulled into the black hole to collide into each other forming the first elements of this new universe, like particle acceleration.
6. from theses newly form elements the first galaxies were formed.
7. followed by solar systems, and suns
8. which inside these solar systems form planets
9. which, if conditions allowed it, formed life.

6-9 I really didn't care to go into details for if you want details its kind of common knowledge.
GarretKadeDupre

Con

I accept. As Con, I will try to disprove Pro's theory/hypothesis/whatever, and I think we can all agree that if I succeed in disproving even one of his steps from #1-9, I win.

I'll start now, since Pro said it's fine with him.

#1. Multiverse

Pro's theory fails to get off the ground; the Multiverse is a logical impossibility.

It is a fundamental principle that whatever doesn't exist of logical necessity, must have been brought into existence by an act of free will. Since the particular constants supposedly governing the behavior of our universe (such as G, c, etc.) could theoretically be any value out of an infinite range of values, but they happen to be of a specific value which is not logically necessary, they must have been assigned the value they presently have by an act of free will. Those who refuse to accept this posit the multiverse; an infinite quantity of universes, each with different values for G, c, etc. The goal is that this way, the specifics of our particular universe can be explained as merely a random sampling of the infinite multiverse.

However, this argument fails on two counts. First, because the multiverse is still part of the natural world, and actual infinities do not exist in the natural world. Second, the word 'universe' refers to all existing space and matter, which means the universe is the same as the multiverse, making the multiverse idea redundant and utterly useless for achieving the end it was created for.

#2. A star collapsed into a black hole in one universe, leading to the creation of another universe.

The concept of back holes is another logical impossibility. Black holes are singularities; they have infinite mass, and are predicted to exist solely on the basis of division by zero in the equations of General Relativity. A logical person must admit that once you get to this point, the model ceases to be an accurate representation of reality, but the philosophically naive person insists that reality must conform to the zero he has written under his division bar.

Even Stephen Hawking has abandoned the notion that Black Holes are real.[1]

#3. Space ripped into the unknown spaces between dimensions.

This doesn't make sense. Space can't rip into space.

I'm done for now, and I look forward to Pro supporting his case and dealing with my objections.

[1]http://www.nature.com...

Debate Round No. 1
BDPershing

Pro

#1. Multiverse

Pro's theory fails to get off the ground; the Multiverse is a logical impossibility.

It is a fundamental principle that whatever doesn't exist of logical necessity, must have been brought into existence by an act of free will. Since the particular constants supposedly governing the behavior of our universe (such as G, c, etc.) could theoretically be any value out of an infinite range of values, but they happen to be of a specific value which is not logically necessary, they must have been assigned the value they presently have by an act of free will. Those who refuse to accept this posit the multiverse; an infinite quantity of universes, each with different values for G, c, etc. The goal is that this way, the specifics of our particular universe can be explained as merely a random sampling of the infinite multiverse.

However, this argument fails on two counts. First, because the multiverse is still part of the natural world, and actual infinities do not exist in the natural world. Second, the word 'universe' refers to all existing space and matter, which means the universe is the same as the multiverse, making the multiverse idea redundant and utterly useless for achieving the end it was created for.

"must have been brought into existence by an act of free will"
Your again suggesting the universe was created by god it seems, but, again, Problem of Evil, Omnipotence paradox, and where the hell did he come from. Where did this "free will" come to be.

"Were going to stick to "our" universe, after exploring the imaginary space and find a rational explanation how the multiverse came to be i'll add it, but till then we should stick to our dimension, aka, universe."

Please respect my guide lines, if one could give a theory of "god", then I see no difference between a multiverse besides logic, which is because god is illogical, and multiverse can be logical for it is connected by quantum physics, and if the black hole theory comes to be true the idea of a universe can create another universe also becomes logical.

For all I know the step before a multiverse could be in fact a god, but were looking for the steps not the being who started it all, if there is a being that is. But till then, multiverse stays as a good logical explanation, which doesn't take the burdens that the answer "god" has, like who made this being, how does this being not have a beginning, if he doesn't have a beginning even though everything should have a beginning he becomes illogical. With multiverse its simple, This universe was created by another universe, which created by another etc... Compared to Eternal regression which says one being has existed for eternity, infinite regression goes by steps, but who knows it might have a true original starting point.

There is some evidence that suggest a multiverse exist, quatom physics for example.
http://www.space.com...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...

#2. A star collapsed into a black hole in one universe, leading to the creation of another universe.

The concept of back holes is another logical impossibility. Black holes are singularities; they have infinite mass, and are predicted to exist solely on the basis of division by zero in the equations of General Relativity. A logical person must admit that once you get to this point, the model ceases to be an accurate representation of reality, but the philosophically naive person insists that reality must conform to the zero he has written under his division bar.

Even Stephen Hawking has abandoned the notion that Black Holes are real.[1]

We have observed black holes, therefor, though we can't find an accurate explanation for it, we can only proceed with the fact they exist. The Big Bang is a theory of a singularity exploding making a ever expanding universe, a black hole is a theory of a singularity forever contracting. What if these singularities are one in the same.

"For every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force"
Sir Isaac Newtons laws of motion
http://hubblesite.org...

#3. Space ripped into the unknown spaces between dimensions.

This doesn't make sense. Space can't rip into space.

I'm done for now, and I look forward to Pro supporting his case and dealing with my objections.

I might have been unclear, so I can understand this confusion.
Imagine you have two water balloons, when I speak of a "space rip" i'm referring to when a dimensions edge , like a balloon, gets "punctured" causing a leak, per-say, in the space between the balloons.

Balloons = Universes
space in between balloons = nothingness/void
puncture/leak = space rip

"This doesn't make sense. Space can't rip into space."
If I poke a hole in a water balloon the space(water) inside said balloon does not leak out??

Really the space in between universes is more like nothingness, which goes into imaginary space philosophy, which I would prefer not to go into detail on how the imaginary space works.

"There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory, but quantum theory enables energy and information to escape."
-Steven Hawking
Define escape : troll face: it could be this energy, particles, and information simply escapes to another universe O.o, Mind Blown.

4. Due to everything have a polar opposite the collapse into a single point, ripping the space fabric, causing the inverse of collapsing to a singular point in one dimension making a big bang in another creating the space later becoming a universe.

5. The violence of spilling threw this space rip causes the particles that were ripped apart when pulled into the black hole to collide into each other forming the first elements of this new universe, like particle acceleration.

Believe it or not but the black hole theory I have more or less explains most of the issues pointed out by this article you have listed.
What is funny is how everyone ignores Sir Isaac Newtons laws of motion when it comes to black holes, my theory simply shows that this "infinitely dense" black hole isn't really dense but a hole into the original point of a universe which is infinitely expanding. Everything has a inverse reaction, it just so happens this inverse is a universe's big bang caused by said black hole.
[1]http://www.nature.com......

Conclusion:
#1 If multiverse is a logical impossibility so is god due to contradiction, yet multiverse becomes logical if a black hole can create a universe.
#2 this argument is stating due mathematics failure to explain black holes, black holes just don't exist which is logically impossible for we observe them
#3 I was sorry for your confusion on what I meant by "space rip" so I went into more detail, "This doesn't make sense. Space can't rip into space.", Space: the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
Ill give another example for this again,

You live in a room correct? that is space
outside that door is more space.which is the home you live in.
And outside that door is the world, which is more space.
And outside the earth is more space.
Outside the solar system's space is even more space...
Etc...

When one separates space away from itself it become a unique space if the nothingness that lays outside the universes its the entirety of space, then a universe is simply a room in that space. So if one "room" opens a door into the nothingness space, then that would be more or less a space rip for the boundary between nothingness and the universe's space is nullified due to the door being opened.

But that may just confuse you so I refer to the water balloon example.
GarretKadeDupre

Con

I'll make this brief.

#1. 'Universe' is defined as 'all space and matter', meaning that the multiverse, and all it's space and matter, is part of our universe. This means multiverse is meaningless; it is the sames universe. So Pro can't appeal to the multiverse to explain the origin of the universe; that's like appealing to the universe to explain the origin of the universe.

The ultimate source of free will (the origin of all other free wills) never came to be; it always was, by logical necessity.

#2. Pro said we observe black holes. This makes no sense; black holes are supposed to be so black that we can't see them.

#3. Pro said space rips into nothingness. But nothingness is space, so Pro is stuck with the original problem: space can't rip into space.
Debate Round No. 2
BDPershing

Pro

#1. 'Universe' is defined as 'all space and matter', meaning that the multiverse, and all it's space and matter, is part of our universe. This means multiverse is meaningless; it is the sames universe. So Pro can't appeal to the multiverse to explain the origin of the universe; that's like appealing to the universe to explain the origin of the universe.

The ultimate source of free will (the origin of all other free wills) never came to be; it always was, by logical necessity.

Multiverse: multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes or "alternate universes"

Universe:
1. all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

2. a particular sphere of activity, interest, or experience.

Space: the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.

Space rip only refers to when a dimension's limit/ boundary is broken and starts spilling out into unoccupied space this is what a black hole, more or less, is in this theory. The matter that spills into this space forms its own boundaries making the new universe.

Your defined universe isn't even correct, the experience we have today is what we consider a universe in its entirety, but what we don't experience are the other universes that may exist which is what the multiverse is.

#2. Pro said we observe black holes. This makes no sense; black holes are supposed to be so black that we can't see them.

your lack knowledge is interesting so i'll enlighten you on the subject.
Black holes are detected as surrounding material (like gas) is funneled by the force of gravity into a disk around the black hole. The gas molecules in the disk swirl around the black hole so fast that they heat up and emit X-rays. These X-rays can be detected from Earth.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...-

#3. Pro said space rips into nothingness. But nothingness is space, so Pro is stuck with the original problem: space can't rip into space.

Is an empty room non existent?
Your still not getting it so ill try to repeat myself in a more sensible example,
You remember the room analogy?
well we have a large storage shed area with only 4 walls, but we want to make reserved areas for different storage items. So we build 2 new walls in a corner sealing off the corner from the rest of the shed that is 1 new room, next to it we build another room than can only be entered by a door inside the room we built which is only accessed by a door that leads to the rest of the shed, but there is no door from the 2nd room leading to the main storage room area. What we have done here is made 3 individual spaces, which can only be accessed by going threw the doors.

the doors are the space rip.
rooms are the individual universes
the main storage area that was the original is the space we call nothingness.

Maybe its easier to draw -_-
http://goo.gl...

I do better with paper normally when explaining how things work ya know -_-

How the multiverse came to be? No idea, still working on it. How Nothingness exists? I'll assume for now it has always been there but that goes into imaginary theory and space.

As for a sound reasonable explanation on how "our" universe came to be, i'll say this is good enough.

I will conclude with the success to answering the issues my opponent has brought up, and calmly given a logical explanation within the bounds of this theory answers that should be satisfactory to my opponent. If one is confused I believe my excel link should provide a better visual view on how this logic works exempting how the multiverse came to be and how nothingness was created, for those arguments weren't part of this theory.
Which with is concludes the Theory of,

How our universe was created, Chronological order:
1. Multiverse
2. _____ star(unknown size) collapsing into a black hole, from one of these universes from multiverse.
3. Causing space rip into the unknown spaces between dimensions
4. Due to everything have a polar opposite the collapse into a single point, ripping the space fabric, causing the inverse of collapsing to a singular point in one dimension making a big bang in another creating the space later becoming a universe.
5. The violence of spilling threw this space rip causes the particles that were ripped apart when pulled into the black hole to collide into each other forming the first elements of this new universe, like particle acceleration.
6. from theses newly form elements the first galaxies were formed.
7. followed by solar systems, and suns
8. which inside these solar systems form planets
9. which, if conditions allowed it, formed life.

6-9 I really didn't care to go into details for if you want details its kind of common knowledge.

Is logically sound with only the need of placing it as a hypothesis and securing the evidence needed to find it to be either true or false, but due to our limited understanding of black holes and the lack of equipment to confirm this theory's claim of a universe existing beyond a black hole, I doubt this theory would be able to be proven or dis proven within the next 80 years.

Seems I have developed another "god" like theory...
GarretKadeDupre

Con

#1. Pro defined the universe as all existing matter, thus encompassing the multiverse within the universe. So he can't appeal to the multiverse to explain the origin of the universe. Pro's explanation of the universe is silly; he says it's what we experience everyday is the entirety of the universe! Since I've never experienced a black hole, that must mean they don't exist, and thus, Pro's argument fails.

#2. Pro's idea of a black hole is incoherent; it's supposed to have such gravity that nothing can escape, yet X-rays escape!?

#3. Of course an empty room isn't non-existent, but nothingness is. The room analogy makes no sense because an empty room =/= nothingness.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
Gotta love people who vote but don't read,
"Were going to stick to "our" universe, after exploring the imaginary space and find a rational explanation how the multiverse came to be i'll add it, but till then we should stick to our dimension, aka, universe."

More or less saying refuting the multiverse is against the rules for it is beyond what this theory encompasses, Like arguing for a creator of god.

I even stated in the rebuttal about it,

""Were going to stick to "our" universe, after exploring the imaginary space and find a rational explanation how the multiverse came to be i'll add it, but till then we should stick to our dimension, aka, universe."

Please respect my guide lines, if one could give a theory of "god", then I see no difference between a multiverse besides logic, which is because god is illogical, and multiverse can be logical for it is connected by quantum physics, and if the black hole theory comes to be true the idea of a universe can create another universe also becomes logical."

Which shows its logically possible in this theory, Con obliviously tried to refute the argument of by saying the multiverse couldn't exist, and immediately dropped the argument once the guide line was brought to his attention. Showing that he conceded this argument about the multiverse due to the guidelines given.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
The matter the comes threw the black hole creates the elements continually through a type of particle acceleration/collider, making the amount of building material to be limitless, or at least equal to the mass of the fathering universe. As for light, i'm sure there is lots of elements that have weird properties a super accelerator could be pulling out these elements now, but due to are distance from the origin we will not see it for billions of years. Not enough time seems to be such a main point to so many argumentors against the big bang and evolution it seems. Again how can you determine it wasn't enough time, the variables are different per universe, one could develop faster than others.

Plasma Cosmology Theory, interesting Multiverse's father? hue hue
Posted by cocobean 2 years ago
cocobean
No. I didn't find a lot of evidence in favor of the Big Bang Theory, but I found a lot on why it didn't and couldn't have happened. The standard picture of the Big Bang Theory proves that we cannot be here because there hasn't been nearly enough time for the debree of the Big Bang to turn into galaxies and milky ways. There are lots of other reasons why the Big Bang didn't happen that includes light element abundances have contradictory density's , large-scale voids are to old, surface brightness is constant, there isn't any conservation of energy, and there isn't extra room for dark matter.
I found a lot of evidence about the Plasma Cosmology Theory and it made a lot more sense then any evidence I found about the Big Bang Theory.-shauna :)
"...plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without beginning or end , far better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book set off a considerable debate"
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
#1. Pro defined the universe as all existing matter, thus encompassing the multiverse within the universe. So he can't appeal to the multiverse to explain the origin of the universe. Pro's explanation of the universe is silly; he says it's what we experience everyday is the entirety of the universe! Since I've never experienced a black hole, that must mean they don't exist, and thus, Pro's argument fails.

Wouldnt us coming from a black hole mean we have experienced a black hole? I like how you attempt to justify non "physical" experience as lack of existence, by that logic we cannot justify existence of god, space, the sun, moon, etc.. for we all have not "physically" experience it.

#2. Pro's idea of a black hole is incoherent; it's supposed to have such gravity that nothing can escape, yet X-rays escape!?

Yet hawking radiation is suppose to disperse a supernova before it makes a black hole, I did stat we have limited understanding about black holes.

#3. Of course an empty room isn't non-existent, but nothingness is. The room analogy makes no sense because an empty room =/= nothingness.

Nothingness is a space that's empty, like an empty room... I have made this comparison already

Overall with 10k worth so characters and no attempt to even provide a conclusion... Well I expected a little more "effort" but maybe I was expecting too much.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
Go for it, I dont mind refute if you can.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
or do i start rebutting ur stuff right now?
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Do I just say "i accept" and wait for you to post ur arguments?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
BDPershingGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: By refuting the idea of multiverses, CON automatically wins, since he only had to prove one of the basic ideas false. I wish that PRO said in the rules that CON had to sufficiently refute his points, since I think that'd be more beneficial as a judge. Anyways, arguments to CON because they automatically won.