|
|
|
|
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/29/2008 5:19:18 AM | | you mean like vacum energy where there is energy in nothing? We live is such a cool universe! | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/30/2008 6:24:09 AM | | It is cool isn't it? What I find fascinating is at the point where scienttists thought thew universe would either continue, stop or start to come back in on itself. . . . it's going quicker than ever past that point. The further you look into space at the more distant galaxies the quicker they are going away from us. Maybe they are trying to tell us something ., . . . . lol | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/30/2008 9:42:36 AM | nothing comes from nothing.
According to buddhist beliefs, which I share, it is a continuous of world's systems. When one system dies, another gets reborn - under different forms.
It make no sense (to me) to think that we came from nothing or that we came from a Creator. And where did the Creator come from? Energy can only be transformed. It cannot disappear or get created from nothing: it is just the law of nature. It is the flame that passes from one torch to the next, unless we kill the fire of passions- the drive for existence and for non-existence-.....then we have NIRVANA ( meaning : non burning, done , gone beyond) something that cannot be even expressed and not even experience ( can you experience death or nothingness? you can't).
As long as there is energy, of any kind, there is life. At least this is what scientists believe and the hidden truth of buddhism as well: everything is mutation, transformation. Nothing, except nothingness itself - which you cannot experience, is static: makes perfect sense to me. In other words: we cannot experience nothingness: therefore, to humans, there is only transformation, which is the secret to life and to consciousness. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/30/2008 10:44:22 AM | ForumBloom, maybe it would be fun to think that until all the possibilities of anything that could be are defined, then nothing (the absence of everything) will only be an expanding paradoxical state...lurking in the shadows waiting for it's liberation.
*twilight zone music* | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/30/2008 11:06:55 AM | A circle has no beginning and no end. Neither does a square. And so on.
Space exists only as objects.
Time exists only as movement between objects.
An object alone cannot cannot exist, therefore a God cannot exist.
Existence without objects is not.
Therefore there is not not.
Infinite regression is. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/30/2008 11:14:35 AM | Beamish, you might be able to think of time as simply degrees of state changes.
And identities capable of existing in multiple states at once, will use fewer degrees in state changes, and are capable of more efficiently existing in the 4th dimension.
Light, for example, probably exists in multiple states very efficiently.
But I'm no physicist. So I don't know the details as to how.
I wouldn't be surprised that if an identity small enough is observed close enough, that it's behaviour is capable of existing using the fewest resources possible to exist in the most states at once and is existing in the 4th dimension quite efficiently. So efficiently that we can't even use the 4th dimension to properly observe it. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/31/2008 6:59:46 AM |
The further you look into space at the more distant galaxies the quicker they are going away from us.
It is cool to think about all this, here is another cool point, one that seems to get missed.
All of this data that supports this theory is just a little on the old side of things. Best calculations so far I believe have the known or visable universe at around 13.7 billion years old. Since the calculations are based on the electromagnetic spectrum and the observation of red shift itself also travels no faster than the speed of light that means our data is at its oldest, 13.7 billion years old. At its youngest 2.5 million years old which is how far the Andromeda galaxy is away from us. Whoops, Andromeda is not expanding away from us, its due to collide with the milkyway in a couple of billion years along with some others.
I read a paper recently where someone took this into account and calculated the probability of big bang being correct. I think he came up with something like a 6 percent probability that this was a valid conclusion to this theory.
Food for thought... | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/31/2008 7:08:33 AM | | Another point to be made on expansion would be this. If the further out in space you look the further back in time you see, there for would not the acceleration be a result of the aftermath of the big bang itself and not, as scientist suggest, be the current state or the future state of the universe? | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/31/2008 8:51:39 AM | | I don't know where you heard that from, possibly movies like "The Secret" or "What the beep do we know" but that statement is simply false. There are various interpretations of Quantum Physics. You're gonna have to be more clear with what you mean by "Matter is illusion". | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/31/2008 2:51:13 PM | you are an quite intelligent bloke.
you seem to have a good understanding.
however, i am not sure if you and others are aware of the unified force theory.
i have done quite a bit of my own personal research on this area.
this big bnag theory sugguests that at the moment of the big bang,... before space or matter existed.....
and i agree with you here - hence without space, there is no such thing as time or even light itself.....,
there existed a superforce, a single force from which all the other forces and everything originated from. forces such as gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic forces divided and branched out from the single original superforce.
the nature of this single superforce is dimensionless and omni present- no space. so it is a very mysterious force indeed.
and it is from this single force everything has originated, even that which cannot be
properly explained by science. things such as human nature, emotion, animal instinct,
a person's lifeforce or spirit, etc, etc .
there was darkness before light, according to the big-bang theory because without photon's there is no such thing as light.
i would like to point out that genesis has an account of creation only after the heavens and earth, had already existed. therefore, the bible is a not a complete or literal account of creation as claimed by fundamentalist christians.
the light that is indicated in genesis is logically and i believe to be the birth of our sun within the solar system or some other spiritual message, which christian fundamentalists love to use to as a weapon of political correctness to disrespect well respected scientists and astropysicists and well tested scientific fact.
the first photon's appeared after the hot violent sea of quarks and antiquarks, nearly cancelled each other out.
and as far as science can determine, it took around 350, 000 years even before the first atom was formed.
this is not in conflict with any religion as far as i have researched into it.
lets just take the old testament for example; the 7 day account in genesis.
because a day of the lord's is like a thousand years of mans, hence one day could be 1000 years and 1000 years x 365days x another 1000 years, etc and so on.
this verse really means that the notion of time is not the message intended in the bible whatsoever.
i dont understand what the threat science is to chistian funadmentalists because science and its theories cannot offer any proof or disproof that there is such a thing as
spirit or a spiritual aspect to anything. science can only be used to measure a small amount of the measureable physical universe and to test scientific theory with scientific facts. scientific theory is thoroughly tested before being accepted....
getting awy from "god."
atheist are correct when they claim that god is created by men. because that is very true.
man creates his own faith - his own interpretation or perspective of god or lack thereof. this is created from his own upbrining, education, experiences and his own choices.
sadly, thats been used to control and manipulate others politically by atheists and religious extremists since the beginning of the human race for their own gratification.
as for myself, i belief that there is a divine force that is omnipresent and that it is supported by scientific fact and scientific theory. this divine force is a creation and destiny force which has control of our universe and all the other universes . we are trapped in one of them.
heaven or heavens is a created thing and is a single multi-verse, the sum of countless universes.
i also belief that there is truth in all religions so long as truth is not compromised by others. i believe also that science is also based on truth and honesty by honorable and good people.
therefore the altimate truth, is universal and can only be harnessed by living life to cultivate and practice human compassion for our fellow man and our environment.
truth cannot be contained accurately by any single person, theory or religion due to our own limitations as human beings with limited understanding.
if a person locks in his own created truth, he will creates a small reality for himself, he restricts his own perspective, damaging himself and works against the harmony of the universe and other people.
most people are good people and encourage others so that is good enough for me.
perhaps its enough for the created god, not up to anyone to judge anyhow.
kind regards
from don in
western australia. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 5:41:24 AM | Good stuff Abarzac, interesting to point out that in Genesis God created the heaven and the earth as it reads: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
However some theologians will tell you the light is more about the realization of faith and not really about the sun firing up. It does not say anything about the sun.
And big bang came to the same conclusion, there was darkness before the light. There seems to be some different interpretations of big bang as well, one being that photons did exist in that pre 350,000 year period and that they were unable to escape due to the pure density of it.
Which in turn brings about another interesting question, given that all of the matter in the known and unknown universe was all in this first and single singularity, what velocity was required for all of that matter to escape without it all falling back in on itself? Faster than light perhaps? Seems as if the problem becomes even more critical when you add in dark matter and dark energy, or did these already exist giving matter the pull it needed to reach escape velocity? But then that would raise even more questions, where did the dark stuff come from and why was it there to begin with... | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 6:23:09 AM |
nothing comes from nothing.
But everything has a starting point, right? The something must have come from something, but where did that something come from?
To quote Overbye:
"Bohr once commented that a person who wasn't outraged on first hearing about quantum theory didn't understand what had been said."
Of course, I am no physicist. But even they don't understand it. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 8:43:45 AM | Cool! I missed alot of good posts here... Sometimes it's good to take a few days off, haha.
Forumbloom;
I'm also very much influenced by the ways of the Buddha.
nothing comes from nothing.
I agree... But only because there is no such thing as "nothing"... Empty space just doesn't exist... The very moment a space is opened up, potential energy changes into different types of particles to fill it... Not only does "nothing" not exist, but it would take quite the paradox in reason to make it... As you say, there is only energy and energy can only transform into other forms of energy... This "nothing" is just potential energy waiting for the space to be transformed into realized energy.
It make no sense (to me) to think that we came from nothing or that we came from a Creator. And where did the Creator come from? Energy can only be transformed.
Interesting... In my way, the Tao is pure potential... "Before all things was the way of all things" or "Before anything may actualize, there must be potential for it"... I believe we are the Tao in the process of self discovery... I also believe that when the Tao reaches a point of self realization, It creates a universe and all in that universe is an aspect of its creator... God, to me is what happens when the Tao becomes self aware, but at the same time, the Tao keeps on going and so the next time it becomes self aware, it is different.
To me there is an infinte amount of creator Gods available and each one is slightly different just because each time, the Tao Itself has a little more experience and of course that all are unique aspects of the one.
Beamish;
A circle has no beginning and no end. Neither does a square. And so on.
Space exists only as objects.
Time exists only as movement between objects.
I agree, except I'd say time exists only as the recognition of the flow of change.
An object alone cannot cannot exist, therefore a God cannot exist.
But many Gods could... This universe could be the product of one of their acts of "self discovery"
Infinite regression is.
Infinite regression cannot exist without the possibilty of infinite expansion.
Vancer;
I like your way of thinking.
I wouldn't be surprised that if an identity small enough is observed close enough, that it's behaviour is capable of existing using the fewest resources possible to exist in the most states at once and is existing in the 4th dimension quite efficiently. So efficiently that we can't even use the 4th dimension to properly observe it.
I'm curious about this 4th dimention you keep talking about... I wouldn't mind seeing a thread about it sometime.
zerospazz;
Another point to be made on expansion would be this. If the further out in space you look the further back in time you see, there for would not the acceleration be a result of the aftermath of the big bang itself and not, as scientist suggest, be the current state or the future state of the universe?
I'm not so sure I understand what you're saying here... We can see what happened by looking back at the path everything took to get here but I don't know what you mean by the rest... Could you expand on that?
Which in turn brings about another interesting question, given that all of the matter in the known and unknown universe was all in this first and single singularity, what velocity was required for all of that matter to escape without it all falling back in on itself? Faster than light perhaps?
Some say the speed of thought is faster... Before we could have "change" everything must have been the same for a time... Could be any velocity at all would be enough to trigger a "starting point".
scipioafricanus;
There are various interpretations of Quantum Physics. You're gonna have to be more clear with what you mean by "Matter is illusion".
I think it's just a reference to the fact that everything is energy and that matter is just an aspect of such... Some even believe that everything is illusion and that change doesn't exist except in our minds(or Mind I guess).
abarzac;
I liked everything you had to say...
most people are good people and encourage others so that is good enough for me.
perhaps its enough for the created god, not up to anyone to judge anyhow.
Perhaps... Personally, I don't think God is above us but within us... We are just as much a part of "all that is" as It is.
adamf73;
I'm sorry to have such a lengthy reply on your thread... It's just something I love speculating on and I thank you for starting it.
But everything has a starting point, right? The something must have come from something, but where did that something come from?
I believe potential is eternal... Could be that the first "thing" was a result of running out of options in the realm of possibility. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 9:30:57 AM |
adamf73;
I'm sorry to have such a lengthy reply on your thread... It's just something I love speculating on and I thank you for starting it.
Thats OK stonestongue. Thats what the thread is for. If it was just me posting not even I would read it! lol | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 9:32:00 AM | I suspect that "Divine Power" is kind of jumping to conclusions. But then again, pretty much ANYTHING dealing with the pre-Big Bang Universe is gonna be jumping to conclusions, so...
I would say it's probably all part of some greater process of universe creation and destruction. The Universe really is just a big explosion, after all. So my guess is there's something greater going on that creates a bunch of explosions, like sparks but on a gigantic scale, and each explosion is a universe. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 9:36:41 AM | thanks zerospazz,
you raise some very interesting questions.
but i dont believe the universe came from nothing,
i believe it came from a mysterious force,
a mysterious force that existed before everything and will always exist.
who cares what it really is, no-one could ever understand what that unified superforce is anyhow. but the unified force theory is a scientific theory not a religious one.
i believe the scientist have an excellent theory with the big-bang model and quantum physics.
big- bang theory- its not an explosion of matter either as many suggest.
what many people dont understand that the physics
outside of the atom is very different than the physics within it.
the existing physics before matter had formed was unique and very much more complex.
there are 6 dimensions outside the atom to describe that area of space.
they have discovered 9 dimensions inside the atom to explain the nature quantum physics. all areas of space are inter- woven also - thats the thread theory part.
i personally believe there are infintely more dimensions that they have discovered and may never be able to discover them all before the universe comes to an end.
many things can't ever be measured using science (directly or indirectly) anyhow, only percieved.
things like human understanding, compassion, morality, esp- how can it be detected??, proved???, etc, etc .
thanks for your thoughts and
kind regards...
the duck
from west ozz | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 10:34:52 AM | in response to
That other dude , post on 6/1/2008;
force isnt power, they are different, like you and me.
power comes from force, so does energy.
force can exist without needing time to specificy it.
power can't exits without time.
all the physical entities have a hierachy and have their proper places,
you can't create your own physics without removing scientific fact.
you best keep guessing then,
my guess is you might get something right occassionally, possibly...
but i suspect thats kind of jumping to conclusions.
the duck
from west ozz | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 10:58:21 AM | stonestongue;
posting 6/1/2008
i agree with you, buddhist philosphy is very good,
so is taoism.
all the various religious principles are good when they exercised positively.
science is a discipline that can be used destructively or creatively.
similarly, religion, philosphy and science are all disciplines.
thanks for your comment stonestongue;
you know what you are talking about...
regards
the duck
from west ozz | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 2:26:21 PM | Abarzac, I think we are on the same page, I am just looking at it from a different angle. I think the truth lies in some combination of religion and science. If you were to ask Einstein he would have said, "I am trying to find out how God made the universe work." Actual quote by the way. Many scientist today will say, when looking at the problems with the singularity or M thoery, coming to the point where they can no longer explain, they will say, "Its like looking at the face of God.
Buddhist philosphy has been mentioned and I also like this idea of a cyclical universe. Big bang was also once thought to possibly be cyclical in nature but the new problems with it have gotten them away from it into an ever expanding cold and dying universe.
Which brings me to...
I'm not so sure I understand what you're saying here... We can see what happened by looking back at the path everything took to get here but I don't know what you mean by the rest... Could you expand on that?
I can try Stonestongue, but the thoery itself is somewhat abstract...
Lets say it this way, if Galaxy T can be observed with a red shift of about seven, which the last I heard was the record for distance of a galaxy from us at about at about 29 billion light years away. And this Galaxy T is observed as having properties that would make it a young galaxy, the shape the quality and density tells us it probably has first generation stars, ours is a third generation star, all of the qualitys that tell us that this may be some of the first galaxys ever formed in the universe after the big bang. If we are observing this as a proto galaxy are we not also observing how it behaves as a first galaxy along with it's speed and direction? Would not this speed and direction also be the same speed and direction found when the first galaxys formed after big bang? Were looking at data that is 29 billion years old, how can one make a conclusion to the current state with data that old.
Perhaps I am only projecting my lack of understanding of the theory, but I did read it.
LOL. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/1/2008 11:13:53 PM | you best keep guessing then,
my guess is you might get something right occassionally, possibly...
but i suspect thats kind of jumping to conclusions.
Sorry for offering my opinion in response to someone else's question. Clearly I have offended you. Well, okay. Since you're so adamant about how ignorant I am, let's see what you have to say.
power comes from force, so does energy.
force can exist without needing time to specificy it.
power can't exits without time.
That's nice. Sounds about right to me. I don't seem to recall making an argument against the nature of force over time. What's your point?
force isnt power, they are different, like you and me.
Well, since I can't find any mention of "force" or "power" in my last response, I must assume you are making general discussion, rather than referring to my post. So, uh... yes. I agree that force and power, like you and me, are very different.
all the physical entities have a hierachy and have their proper places,
you can't create your own physics without removing scientific fact.
How romantic. Good thing I'm not removing scientific fact. I'm offering simple speculation about something for which little to no scientific facts exist: Pre-Big Bang theory.
Perhaps you assumed I was responding to your earlier post. To be honest I hadn't even read it, I was just responding to the original question. Now that I've read it, you seem to make some interesting points, above. But frankly I have no idea what you're talking about in your response to my post. You seem to make no reference at all to anything I said.
Well anyway, I'm sorry this little discussion had to turn hostile. Clearly it's my fault. But if you ever want to discuss this in an adult manner, without the whole "insulting" bit, please let me know. Have a nice day. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/2/2008 10:40:39 AM | That other dude on 6/2/2008
you have a nice day too as i sure will. 
Well, since I can't find any mention of "force" or "power" in my last response, I must assume you are making general discussion, rather than referring to my post. So, uh... yes. I agree that force and power, like you and me, are very different.
its about your comment about divine power and pre-big bang theory
as i have no idea what you are on about.
your ideas of multiple explosions birthing universes just dont make any sense to me either. explosions before any form of matter? logical? mmmmm....
as for your perception of me being insulting or hostile is rather dissappointing as i have not responded to you with any insulting or hostile remark.
How romantic. Good thing I'm not removing scientific fact. I'm offering simple speculation about something for which little to no scientific facts exist: Pre-Big Bang theory.
you are welcome to speculate and assume as much as you wish,
but if there is little or no scientific fact or logic behind it,
then frankly sorry but i am not interested.  | |
|
| |
Sakora
|
Joined: 10/24/2007
Msg: 98 | |
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/2/2008 12:10:44 PM | You all seem to comtemplate this topic on Einstiens theory of relativity. But what about string theory? A new approach to theoretical physics.
I highly recommend watching Stephen Hawkings "A theory of Everything" this does not just include the big bang, but what was before, and what is beyond, how it is all connected.
The debate that the universe came from nothing is rather very interesting. Matter is only an illusion?
"At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe" Thus matter does exist. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/2/2008 12:17:35 PM | I stand firm that this is all an internally driven simulacrum, designed to figure out how to solve 'the first paradox'.
Or, it could be just to figure out how to make the perfect cup of coffee.
Okay, my stance is really not that firm.
But, I do really like coffee. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 6/2/2008 1:34:21 PM | we all know the old saying...../ ashes 2 ashes/ dust 2 dust??
that's my thoughts.
  | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
