The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

universe,time ever existent

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 830 times Debate No: 95626
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




i think that saying universe and time always existed is a safer assumption than a creation,creator and evolution.



This is a theory known as the "Steady State Theory". Interestingly enough it was accepted by many prominent physicists when it was first introduced. It has now been disregarded, and the big bang theory has shown such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is now widely accepted in the scientific community and does seem to be indicative of the reality in which we live.

Before we start this debate, I would just like to clarify what evolution you are talking about. Do you simply mean evolution of the universe as in the big bang and expanding space or do you include the evolution of species? If you could reply in the comments or perhaps your following argument then that might clear some things up for me.

Thank you, and I am looking forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


the steady state theory states that matter is produced and destroyed simultaneously thus there is no net change.
it supports my theory, since matter is produed and destroyed then there is no point in space time coordinate that must show a begining; because begining would mean only production and no destruction of matter, so both time and universe is existing forever.

i got this idea when i was reading 'the theory of everything' in that book, stephen states three possibilities of origin; one is big bang and expanding universe till infinity, second was big bang and big crunch, and most importantly third was universe and time existing forever.


The steady state theory does indeed describe the creation and destruction of matter to form an equilibrium state. The problem with the theory, and the reason it was discarded was the discovery of cosmic background radiation which was one of the predictions made by the theory in support of a Universe with a beginning (The Big Bang Theory). Cosmic background radiation is more complicated than most people realise and to explain it in detail here would take to long and be of little practical value so I will give a kind of shortened, simplified explanation; The cosmic background radiation (CBR) is widely accepted to be the "afterglow" of the rapid expansion of energy some 13.8 billion years ago which signifies a beginning to our Universe. CBR is measurable to the same extent in every possible direction meaning that it does not originate from some localised source but exists uniformly across the Universe.

It is also widely accepted that the Universe is expanding, this can be demonstrated by measuring the light shift of our neighbouring, and distant galaxies. You may have heard of a phenomenon known as "the doppler effect". This describes the way sound waves are compressed or stretched (change pitch) as the object emitting the sound travels towards you or away from you. It turns out that the same effect is had on light. When an object is travelling towards you it experiences a blue shift and when it is moving away from you it undergoes a red shifty. These shifts become more apparent at higher velocities and can be directly measured in galaxies. It turns out that all galaxies ever observed in the universe are travelling away from each other as they all experience a red shift. This is indicative of an expanding universe similar to the analogy of taking a deflated balloon with lots of little galaxies drawn on it, if you inflate the balloon then you will notice that all of your galaxies move away from each other. This can be recognised in our own Universe.

If you try to combine the steady state theory with the measured and accepted expanding universe theory then you have a bit of a paradox. If the Universe is expanding and it has also existed for an infinite amount of time then we would not be able to witness this expansion because it would have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

The theory of everything is a good read but I think you may have taken the wrong message from it. Hawking never supported in any way the steady state theory and he actively trying to disprove it until the discovery of the CBR which he described as "The final nail in the coffin ". He always held the view that there was a beginning to the Universe and he even proved that a singularity must have existed at the beginning of the Universe.

In Summary; The Universe appears to have had a beginning, space itself is expanding or "inflating", the CBR is direct evidence of a rapid inflation of energy from 13.8 billion years ago. Stephen Hawking never endorsed the steady state theory and actively researched the beginning of the Universe.

Note: A good read is Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing". That explains in great detail the quantum mechanics behind the idea of "empty" space and how things can arise from "nothing.
Debate Round No. 2


i have read about the cosmic background radiation and doppler effect but my ignorant mind never pondered those paths.
for CBR i can say that what we belive now is that this after-radiation is the result of big bang and death of old stars but one can also say that since matter was created and destroyed throughout infinity then these radiation was coming from matter destroyed long ago and not from big bang, as for uniformity we know that stars are distributed uniformly so it means they were destroyed at same time which can be the explanation of CBR.

for doppler effect we state that if universe was expanding for infinite time then we would not be able observe the shift but it doesnt state that universe had a begining.
maybe universe just started to expand and before it there was a steady constant universe it doesnt point that it had a begining.
if i were to join steady state theory with expanding universe theory them i would say that for time universe was a constant entity (steady state) and due to some reason it started expanding (expanding universe theory) the reason may be still unclear or maybe i am wrong and you won the debate. :)

it was my first debate and next time i will make sure universe was never created.


I think it is admirable that you are 17 years old and already pondering some of the most complicated and mind boggling problems that we face in trying to determine the origin of basically everything we know today. Curious minds and bold questions are what drives new discoveries and explanations. I do believe in this case that your curiosity may be misguided sadly.

It is the uniformity of the CBR which rules out interference from the death of stars or the creation/destruction of matter. If it was caused by such things then a higher or lower value would be measured based on the direction in which you measured it in.

Stars are not uniformly distributed in space, they exist in clusters known as galaxies and within these galaxies there are areas of high densities of stars such as nebulae as well as individually.

The Universe couldn't expand from a steady state as the whole point of a steady state is that it is in equilibrium and has no reason to expand. It would require a massive influx of energy or an "explosion" to cause it to expand. This explosion would have to be of a magnitude far greater than that of the big bang, no remnants of this magnitude is measured today.

If you are still not convinced by this debate then please feel free to contact me in a message and I would be happy to recommend some textbooks, reading material and other sources which may be able to persuade you.

I like you have always been curious about the origins of the Universe and went on to study physics and cosmology after school at University, I do alot of reading and research in my own time and the big bang theory far surpasses the steady state theory in evidence and logical sense.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by infinitum 2 years ago
i always loved science and all facts are true to me. I dont neglect them.
what i loved most about science is not its facts and application but its ideas.
a single 'if' changed the course of our progress, a single 'why' made possible to reason things that were said godly.
so that is the reason i question facts. i dont neglect them, i just unassume them for some time so to know what will come without it, it never proved successful and my theories never proved right but i always get to know more at end.

science to me is not a process or fact or truth (it is to much extent).
but it is more of a raw idea that always enlighten me. :)
Posted by CallumFerguson 2 years ago
Infinitium, it was a good attempt at a first debate. I just want to remind you that if you wish to pursue science in any form then remember what it is all about. Don't let your personal beliefs muddy the waters and always accept the facts, no matter how hard they may be for you to accept.
Posted by infinitum 2 years ago
thank you distraff.
it was my first debate.
i will do better next time.
Posted by distraff 2 years ago
Physics is very complicated and although an idea might make sense to you, that doesn't mean its real life rammifications make any sense. For example the assertion that the universe was in a steady state and then just started expanding would require a massive amount of energy.

Also the star compositions in the universe matches that predicted if they were formed in a non-eternal expanding universe. Here is a good source for evidence for the big bang:
Posted by CallumFerguson 2 years ago
Fair enough, but try not to base your theories on only your own ideas. You will need to back them up with actual facts.
Posted by infinitum 2 years ago
i will keep making my own theories. thanks for all than knowledge and help.
Posted by CallumFerguson 2 years ago
"The expansion of the universe was one of the most important intellectual discoveries of the 20th century, or of any century. It transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning. If galaxies are moving apart now, they must have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, they would all have been on top of one another about 15 billion years ago." - Stephen Hawking
Posted by infinitum 2 years ago
but didnt hawking assumed that universe was uniform and since it was uniform and infinitely large then there would be no point where all stars can collapse.
Posted by CallumFerguson 2 years ago
You can't vote in your own debate. Wait a little while and people who are interested will vote on who presented the argument better and so on. The person who wins the debate is the one with the most points at the end.

There are two things to take into account when asking why the Universe imply doesn't collapse in itself.
1. Galaxies are travelling away from each other, overcoming the gravitational attraction of other galaxies. As their distance apart increases, so does the gravitational attraction decrease.
2.There is another form of energy which exists in space and has repulsive qualities. Nobody knows what dark energy is yet but it is there and it could be partly responsible for driving the expansion of the Universe.

There may come a time where the acceleration of galaxies decreases and they are all attracted sufficiently to one another causing the theory which you mentioned, "The big Crunch". THis doesn't seem to be the case however as the rate at which the galaxies are moving away from each other is currently increasing.
Posted by infinitum 2 years ago
tell me about the voting system and if i can vote or not.
i still have doubts on non uniformity of universe because he universe was non uniform then gravitational force would have attracted all the galaxies to a certain point and we would have observed blue shift the only reason we dont see blue shift is maybe because of universe uniformity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by distraff 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro didn't actually make any good arguments for a steady state and was mostly on the defensive throughout the debate. Con was able to show that Pro's own sources supported the big bang. Con showed that the background radiation is evidence of the big bang and that stars are not uniform in the sky. Con's unproven assertion that the universe somehow started expanding was refuted because of all the energy it would take. Con won this debate.