Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

The big band was not the beginning.

Face-of-the-deep
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 9:28:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I believed this back in 1971.

https://richarddawkins.net...

I had a suspicion that you needed to have something to go bang, in the first place. This is not a chicken and egg thing, it's a fact that nothing can be destroyed but more conclusively, nothing can be created.
imperialchimp
Posts: 257
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 10:25:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:28:19 PM, Face-of-the-deep wrote:
I believed this back in 1971.

https://richarddawkins.net...

I had a suspicion that you needed to have something to go bang, in the first place. This is not a chicken and egg thing, it's a fact that nothing can be destroyed but more conclusively, nothing can be created.

You mean the big bang?
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!

Now if you're telling me that you know gods do/don't exist, you're ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .. -. --. delusional!
Face-of-the-deep
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 10:59:08 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 10:25:24 PM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 10/12/2016 9:28:19 PM, Face-of-the-deep wrote:
I believed this back in 1971.

https://richarddawkins.net...

I had a suspicion that you needed to have something to go bang, in the first place. This is not a chicken and egg thing, it's a fact that nothing can be destroyed but more conclusively, nothing can be created.

You mean the big bang?

Ops, yeah, I found out that the (big bang) was not the immaculate conception. Not the big band, that's entirely different.
David_Debates
Posts: 261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 12:33:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:28:19 PM, Face-of-the-deep wrote:
I believed this back in 1971.

https://richarddawkins.net...

I had a suspicion that you needed to have something to go bang, in the first place. This is not a chicken and egg thing, it's a fact that nothing can be destroyed but more conclusively, nothing can be created.

Just a thought.

Energy is present in our universe.

If energy is present in our universe, it must be ruled by the law of inertia.

The law of inertia lays out that without a force, things will stay at rest. Provided this is true, this means energy must be temporary.

Provided this universe requires energy, we can come to the conclusion that this universe must be temporary.

If this universe is temporary, we can show the opposite: the universe cannot be infinite if it is temporary.

Then we come to the final conclusion:
If the universe is not infinite, or in other words, didn't exist forever, it must have had a beginning, a distinct primal cause.

I'll agree that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe, but I disagree with your statement that there is no beginning.
Archaholic
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 3:22:55 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I don't believe in a beginning either.

Time is just a concept we humans did in order to understand our universe. The universe has always existed.

Besides, there is a law of conservation. "mass is neither created or destroyed, it is just changed". Idem for energy.

BR.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 12:03:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 3:22:55 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I don't believe in a beginning either.

Time is just a concept we humans did in order to understand our universe. The universe has always existed.


And yet... the universe as we know it has not always existed. It was formed during the Big Bang, it has changed since then, it is evolving, and evenually it will decline. It may be that there is something beyond our universe that is eternal, but I don't think we can call that "The Universe".


Besides, there is a law of conservation. "mass is neither created or destroyed, it is just changed". Idem for energy.


Mass is energy and therefore Mass can theoretically be transformed into energy, and energy can theoretically be transformed into matter. That is what the Big Bang was all about.

BR.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 9:57:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
If I remember correctly, Penrose and Hawking proved that if GR is correct then rewinding the BB ends up with a singularity. Actual singularities are (most people think) not possible, because they are have non-physical properties such as zero size and infinite density.

Fortunately, we know that GR is not 100% correct because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics, so it is reasonable to suppose the BB 'singularity' is an approximation to a mathematical singularity; it would have some (small) size and large (but finite) density.

The proper theory to describe the situation would be a full-blown theory of quantum gravity, which we don't have. What these scientist seem to have done is show how the initial BB actual singularity predicted by GR can be avoided.

There is still a BB, but they suggest that rather than the BB starting from an actual singularity and what was before that is unknown, the start point was a finite object that had always existed. But the article is light on detail so I am not sure wat tht objecy was like.

Also, I may have completely misunderstood things!
Face-of-the-deep
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 6:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 12:03:54 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:22:55 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I don't believe in a beginning either.

Time is just a concept we humans did in order to understand our universe. The universe has always existed.


And yet... the universe as we know it has not always existed. It was formed during the Big Bang, it has changed since then, it is evolving, and eventually it will decline. It may be that there is something beyond our universe that is eternal, but I don't think we can call that "The Universe".


Besides, there is a law of conservation. "mass is neither created or destroyed, it is just changed". Idem for energy.

Yes, my understanding is that mass and energy are interchangeable but cannot be created from nothingness. More clearly, you can make mass from energy or vice verso.


Mass is energy and therefore Mass can theoretically be transformed into energy, and energy can theoretically be transformed into matter. That is what the Big Bang was all about.

BR.

Exactly, and to think that something can come from nothingness is ridiculous.
One thing that disables the mind, is thinking that time is finite, when time is an endless commodity. "If anything can happen, with enough time, it will happen somewhere".
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 12:21:01 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 6:59:11 PM, Face-of-the-deep wrote:
At 10/14/2016 12:03:54 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:22:55 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I don't believe in a beginning either.

Time is just a concept we humans did in order to understand our universe. The universe has always existed.


And yet... the universe as we know it has not always existed. It was formed during the Big Bang, it has changed since then, it is evolving, and eventually it will decline. It may be that there is something beyond our universe that is eternal, but I don't think we can call that "The Universe".


Besides, there is a law of conservation. "mass is neither created or destroyed, it is just changed". Idem for energy.

Yes, my understanding is that mass and energy are interchangeable but cannot be created from nothingness. More clearly, you can make mass from energy or vice verso.


That is the question and not something that can be answered with certainty. It does seem rather odd that something could have been created out of nothing and it does seem impossible unless of coarse the sum of the whole of what was created would add up to equal... nothing. Actually we do know that something can be created out of nothing. If you take nothing and you split it into -1 and +1, you end up with two distinct numbers which add up to... nothing. In the same token the universe could exist out of positive and negative elements which together could add up to be nothing at all. Whether this is so of coarse I really don't know.



Mass is energy and therefore Mass can theoretically be transformed into energy, and energy can theoretically be transformed into matter. That is what the Big Bang was all about.

BR.

Exactly, and to think that something can come from nothingness is ridiculous.
One thing that disables the mind, is thinking that time is finite, when time is an endless commodity. "If anything can happen, with enough time, it will happen somewhere".

I have toggled with that issue for some time. On the one hand, the universe must be infinite and on the other hand, we know that the universe is finite. It had a beginning, so it must have an end. Yet it must have come from somewhere and if it can pop up into existence once, it stands to reason that can pop up into existence again.

There must be something beyond the universe that we know, a structure of sorts in the same token that our universe is a structure but a different sort of structure. It is the structure that gave birth to our universe.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,085
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 7:37:13 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I am not sure if you are aware of the 'zero energy universe' hypothesis which suggests the positive mass/energy of the universe is exacty cancelled out by the negative mass/energy of its mutual gravitational attraction.

I don't think we should lose sight of how much stuff came out of the big bang... enough to produce billions of galaxies each with billions of stars... I don't dare work out how many tons of 'stuff' that is! Was all that stuff there already, or do we still need to produce must of it 'out of nothing'?

I no longer attempt to get my head around such questions. Intuition and common sense are clearly useless. I do accept that 13.7 billion years ago the present universe began from a tiny beginning and expanded to what we can observe today. I hope that an article in Scientific American explaining a bit more comes out before I die, but until it does I am content to consider it a interesting but hardly pressing matter.
Philosophy101
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 8:02:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 12:21:01 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/14/2016 6:59:11 PM, Face-of-the-deep wrote:
At 10/14/2016 12:03:54 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/13/2016 3:22:55 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I don't believe in a beginning either.

Time is just a concept we humans did in order to understand our universe. The universe has always existed.


And yet... the universe as we know it has not always existed. It was formed during the Big Bang, it has changed since then, it is evolving, and eventually it will decline. It may be that there is something beyond our universe that is eternal, but I don't think we can call that "The Universe".


Besides, there is a law of conservation. "mass is neither created or destroyed, it is just changed". Idem for energy.

Yes, my understanding is that mass and energy are interchangeable but cannot be created from nothingness. More clearly, you can make mass from energy or vice verso.


That is the question and not something that can be answered with certainty. It does seem rather odd that something could have been created out of nothing and it does seem impossible unless of coarse the sum of the whole of what was created would add up to equal... nothing. Actually we do know that something can be created out of nothing. If you take nothing and you split it into -1 and +1, you end up with two distinct numbers which add up to... nothing. In the same token the universe could exist out of positive and negative elements which together could add up to be nothing at all. Whether this is so of coarse I really don't know.

I think the Big Bang could be the creation of the universe; but I'm not convinced; I see it more as a phase in the greater cosmos where there is something rather than nothing. But that's not exactly right either; rather it is more like a season, and the season our universe appears to be in is summer. This raises a lot of questions about why we appear to be alone in the universe, but that is a different subject.


Mass is energy and therefore Mass can theoretically be transformed into energy, and energy can theoretically be transformed into matter. That is what the Big Bang was all about.

BR.

Exactly, and to think that something can come from nothingness is ridiculous.
One thing that disables the mind, is thinking that time is finite, when time is an endless commodity. "If anything can happen, with enough time, it will happen somewhere".

I believe this is true, both that if given enough time and space anything is possible and that something cannot come from nothing. Yet if we consider how vast just our universe is (with 10^93 atoms in it, spread over billions of light-years; I also come to the conclusion our universe is unique. With this in mind, just how vast time and space are, it would seem that if the Big Bang theory is correct; it would entail that it is part of a greater endless cycle.

I have toggled with that issue for some time. On the one hand, the universe must be infinite and on the other hand, we know that the universe is finite. It had a beginning, so it must have an end. Yet it must have come from somewhere and if it can pop up into existence once, it stands to reason that can pop up into existence again.

There must be something beyond the universe that we know, a structure of sorts in the same token that our universe is a structure but a different sort of structure. It is the structure that gave birth to our universe.
Subutai
Posts: 3,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2016 8:17:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:28:19 PM, Face-of-the-deep wrote:
I believed this back in 1971.

https://richarddawkins.net...

I had a suspicion that you needed to have something to go bang, in the first place. This is not a chicken and egg thing, it's a fact that nothing can be destroyed but more conclusively, nothing can be created.

The big bang theory was never supposed to explain how the universe came to be. It only attempts to describe how the universe evolved after a certain period of time (a multiple greater than 1 of the Planck time after the "birth" of the universe).
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 2:38:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 9:28:19 PM, Face-of-the-deep wrote:
I believed this back in 1971.

https://richarddawkins.net...

I had a suspicion that you needed to have something to go bang, in the first place. This is not a chicken and egg thing, it's a fact that nothing can be destroyed but more conclusively, nothing can be created.

And if you have an infinite number of yesterdays, you can never reach today.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax