Questions about the origin of the universe

[jqnsmart]

Guys the fact of the matter is we are NEVER going to have a right answer.
The human brain is not powerful enough to concieve a theory about the universe.

Talk about a very pessimistic view of the universe.

I think that we will have an answer on the universe and what created it. Just knowing that people out there devote their entire careers to finding out how it happened is already very convincing that we will get an answer (at least to me). Either way, if people think that we will never figure it out then you have two option (or one):
1) Adopt a theory that is already out there, or make your own.
2) (if you're religious) Accept that God (or some other diety) made the world.

Again, either way, there is an answer, whether it has been confirmed or not.

 

[jqnsmart]

why arent there black holes pouring into our universe? wouldn't they be white holes? they would be pushing out light and matter that was sucked in from your so called parrallel universe into ours. seeing as how there is no other universe there is no white holes.

Maybe there are white holes. Maybe we just haven't seen them. Just like we haven't explored the oceans completely, which are right here, we haven't (and probably can't expect to in many lifetimes) explored the universe.


I've seen this idea in books before, so more than one person must find it plausible. It all ends up being a matter of searching in the right spot.

 

[SdogV]

It seems reasonable to assume that "things" (mass, energy, space, etc.) have an awareness for their surroundings, i.e. like life, they respond as their constitution, composition, and conditioning permits. Light as photons requires (needs?) mass for validation. Mass requires (needs?) time for validation. We spend a lot of $$$ banging particles together to see how and what they are made of. Yet, since mass excitation can produce photons, isn't it reasonable to assume a process where photons, needing mass, produce mass? I am unable to find much ongoing experimentation of attempts to produce mass from photons as suggested by relations, mc^2 = h f. = k T

 

[butthead]

even i feel mass and photons and space are related..if the planet Jupiter starts traveling from its orbit to Earth and back to its orbit at a speed of over billion light years per micro second(to and fro)...we will not only see this plannet as a bridge between Earth and Jupiter but if we try to touch it we will be able to feel the mass through out the path as the speed is very high...like ceiling fan appears to have many wings we might see this as a path or kinda bridge ..weird thought but may be space is time and time is space

 

[buffordboy23]

I am unable to find much ongoing experimentation of attempts to produce mass from photons as suggested by relations, mc^2 = h f. = k T

Check out the wikilink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics.

At the bottom of the page, there are some external links to research groups that study such physics.

 

[SdogV]

I checked that link, but it looked like particles are being accelerated in order to produce photons, NOT playing with a controlled source of photons. In my old research days, I was impressed by the fact that crossing electrical discharges to make coronas at different frequencies in a low pressure atmosphere of chlorine and oxygen magically produced chlorine heptoxide, impossible to achieve with a a single corona.

 

[granpa]

whats interesting to me is the question of why the universe is so complicated. the universe had to start in a very simple state. one can easily imagine a single particle existing in the beginning and that particle dividing into 2 then 4 then 8 and so on. but it seems like they should all be the same. such a universe woudnt be very interesting. so where did all the chaos come from?

it just occurred to me that if all the particles are the same then it would be meaningless to say that there was more than one. the very idea of dividing into 2 particles requires that they be different in some way.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's not all wrong. There are too many observations that support it. No serious scientists doubt the BBT.

Actually, I know a scientist that does. He makes a good point: we've never discovered infinite in nature. That isn't to say the big bang is completely wrong, but it could be significantly wrong.

Same scientist is skeptical about black holes as well (he doesn't deny the phenomena that we've come to call a black hole, just the mainstream theory for why we observe that phenomena)

 

[butthead]

i agree that there is no study goin on to find if protons can form a mass...but they can definitely give an illusion of touching the mass...and even the thing that we call mass is not actualy mass ,...mind you 90% of space exists in an atom and its protons ...or molecules revolving around it ...

 

[SixNein]

1. Is it true that time was created in the big bang? In that case; what was it created from?
2. Is it possible that the universe is infinite in space, matter/energy or time?
3. Will the universe continue to expand forever?
4. If time was created in the BB, does it need to have a cause? I've heard physicists say that all the laws of physics - and thus the concept of cause and effect - break down in the singularity, so that BB doesn't need a cause; it just happened. To me this sounds no more convincing than a Christin claiming that "God just did it".

1. Time is just a measurement of motion.
2. Sure it's possible.
3. The rubber-band theory is possible.
4. Well scientist are a bit hypocritical when it comes to religion. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe. So it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

At the end of the day, belief in God is a matter of faith for both atheist and religious people. Even the most advance aliens in the universe have to accept that fact.

 

[lubuntu]

1. Time is just a measurement of motion.
2. Sure it's possible.
3. The rubber-band theory is possible.
4. Well scientist are a bit hypocritical when it comes to religion. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe. So it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

At the end of the day, belief in God is a matter of faith for both atheist and religious people. Even the most advance aliens in the universe have to accept that fact.

SixNein, here is the simple refutation of your point #4

The burden of proving a god is on the believer not the disbeliever
Faith is not a virtuous thing and does nothing to benefit humanity

 

[SixNein]

SixNein, here is the simple refutation of your point #4

The burden of proving a god is on the believer not the disbeliever
Faith is not a virtuous thing and does nothing to benefit humanity

How do you know that I exist? Just about everything that you "know" is based upon faith.

It is mathematically proven (two proofs as a matter of fact) that some things cannot be explain logically. The Continuum hypothesis put forth by Georg Cantor, which deals with infinity, has had strong mathematical evidence that it's impossible to solve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

If mathematics cannot answer these questions, then it's siblings in science doesn't stand a chance.

 

[lubuntu]

I see, so if we can't figure out an answer to a question. Well...we might as well just make some crap up!

The only thing we can do that is of any use is to use empirical evidence to deduce things about reality.

I don't doubt science may not provide the answers to every question we bother to ask in the fullest of time. Yet perhaps, it is a failure in humanities way of trying to attach meaning to everything instead of a failure of empiricism. Some questions can simply not deserve an answer.

 

[Evo]

How do you know that I exist? Just about everything that you "know" is based upon faith.

It is mathematically proven (two proofs as a matter of fact) that some things cannot be explain logically. The Continuum hypothesis put forth by Georg Cantor, which deals with infinity, has had strong mathematical evidence that it's impossible to solve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

If mathematics cannot answer these questions, then it's siblings in science doesn't stand a chance.

You're citing someone that died almost a hundred years ago when religion had much more influence on rational thought than it does now.

Not to mention that he was quite possibly insane.

To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications—he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[45] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

 

[quantumdude]

Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe.

That's precisely why the concept of god is scientifically useless: it isn't falsifiable. Any theory that works with a god can also work without one. It is a superfluous entity that needn't be posited in the first place. There's nothing hypocritical about rejecting such an idea.

 

[SixNein]

You're citing someone that died almost a hundred years ago when religion had much more influence on rational thought than it does now.

Not to mention that he was quite possibly insane.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

I'm citing one of the greatest mathematicians that has ever walked this planet. This hypothesis and the work on it is the foundation of computer science.

 

[SixNein]

That's precisely why the concept of god is scientifically useless: it isn't falsifiable. Any theory that works with a god can also work without one. It is a superfluous entity that needn't be posited in the first place. There's nothing hypocritical about rejecting such an idea.

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea. It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

 

[lubuntu]

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea. It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

Wrong again. If I make an assertion and have clear evidence which you can investigate that shows that to the best of our observation that an assertion is true, it is more correct than assertion made based on "a belief" or "faith."

Science is more correct than religion. There is an object truth we can deduce about the world we live in through experimentation. There is no hypocrisy in dismissing belief in the stead of evidence.

 

[quantumdude]

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea.

I didn't say it was.

It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

If you mean that it's hypocritical for the one who says, "I believe god does not exist" to assert that he is more correct than the one who says "I believe god does exist", then I would agree with you. I wouldn't say either one of those things. Instead I say "I do not believe that god exists", which is perfectly in line with scientific evidence.

My point to you was that you say, "god can not be disproven" as though this should give scientists pause to consider it. It shouldn't. The fact that god isn't falsifiable is precisely the reason that "god" is ignorable.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm citing one of the greatest mathematicians that has ever walked this planet.

OK then here's a question for you: Why?

This thread is about the origin of the universe, not mathematics. Mathematical truths are true by definition. The same can not be said about scientific propositions, which are contingent on experimental results. Mathematics is a priori while science is a posteriori.

 

[lubuntu]

SixNein, I suggest you take a look at this to see why your arguments in this and other threads aren't nearly as strong you suppose they are

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

 

[SixNein]

Wrong again. If I make an assertion and have clear evidence which you can investigate that shows that to the best of our observation that an assertion is true, it is more correct than assertion made based on "a belief" or "faith."

Science is more correct than religion. There is an object truth we can deduce about the world we live in through experimentation. There is no hypocrisy in dismissing belief in the stead of evidence.

You cannot make logical conclusions about God, and I have explained and provided links that explain mathematically why that is the case. Logically, a truth cannot be discovered one way or the other. Thus you have to believe one or the other on faith. So you may chose to believe in God, or you may chose not to. Either way, the decision you make will be based upon faith.

Math trumps all other sciences period. Once math is proven, I don't care how many experiments are done, you will never disprove it. While there is no shortage of people that wish this mathematics would disappear, it's not going to. It's mathematically proven that some things mankind will never be able to explain or understand. Philosophers don't like it, mathematicians don't like it, and physicist don't like it, but the proof is there.

 

[lubuntu]

You cannot make logical conclusions about God, and I have explained and provided links that explain mathematically why that is the case. Logically, a truth cannot be discovered one way or the other. Thus you have to believe one or the other on faith. So you may chose to believe in God, or you may chose not to. Either way, the decision you make will be based upon faith.

It takes no faith to believe nothing, that doesn't make any sense. Capital G, GOD, is a human construct which has nothing to do with the structure of this universe. By not believing in such a thing I am not making ANY positive hypothesis.

The fact that God or anything is outside of a logical structure doesn't speak the volumes for your argument like you think, it simply shows that such inquiry is worthless.

The rest of your argument is a complete non-sequitir, again I implore you to read up on logical fallacies before making your arguments.

 

[SixNein]

SixNein, I suggest you take a look at this to see why your arguments in this and other threads aren't nearly as strong you suppose they are

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

I'm arguing a mathematical proof, which you want to ignore, that says science cannot explain everything. If you was so FIRM in your scientific viewpoints as you claim, then you would accept this observation of mathematics and be enlightened. Instead you want to ignore the mathematical proof because you want to believe that science can answer all of your questions. IT CANNOT.

 

[SixNein]

It takes no faith to believe nothing, that doesn't make any sense. Capital G, GOD, is a human construct which has nothing to do with the structure of this universe. By not believing in such a thing I am not making ANY positive hypothesis.

The fact that God or anything is outside of a logical structure doesn't speak the volumes for your argument like you think, it simply shows that such inquiry is worthless.

The rest of your argument is a complete non-sequitir, again I implore you to read up on logical fallacies before making your arguments.

You are making a positive hypothesis. God does not exist, true or false? If you say true then you believe that every single possibility has been ruled out.

Science works on observation, without observation, science DOES NOT say anything at all. That means, the scientific answer would be... don't know.

 

[lubuntu]

The point is that in my opinion that if the question can't be answered through science, it's a useless question.

 

[lubuntu]

You are making a positive hypothesis. God does not exist, true or false? If you say true then you believe that every single possibility has been ruled out.

Science works on observation, without observation, science DOES NOT say anything at all. That means, the scientific answer would be... don't know.

There is no evidence, while we must of course remain strictly agnostic about all things that have not been ruled entirely out or are unproven. In practice, if we have no evidence for something we call that false.

See Russell's Teapot, he was a mathematician about the same time as your good friend. Maybe that will get through to you.

 

[SixNein]

There is no evidence, while we must of course remain strictly agnostic about all things that have not been ruled entirely out or are unproven. In practice, if we have no evidence for something we call that false.

See Russell's Teapot, he was a mathematician about the same time as your good friend. Maybe that will get through to you.

Perhaps you should re-read his analogy. I have simply claimed that neither side can prove that their opinion is correct. If I said there is a God and your wrong to think other wise, I would be incorrect. However, if you say there is no God and I'm wrong, you are incorrect. The burden of proof lays on the person who attempts to falsify the other.

This brings us back to square one... neither side can do that. Thus you are either going to believe this story or not. Science is not going to disprove god, no are the religious groups going to be able to prove him. So at the end of the day, a person will have to make that decision on his own. There is no science or magic button to press to answer that question, and there never will be.

 

[SixNein]

Perhaps you should re-read his analogy. I have simply claimed that neither side can prove that their opinion is correct. If I said there is a God and your wrong to think other wise, I would be incorrect. However, if you say there is no God and I'm wrong, you are incorrect. The burden of proof lays on the person who attempts to falsify the other.

This brings us back to square one... neither side can do that. Thus you are either going to believe this story or not. Science is not going to disprove god, no are the religious groups going to be able to prove him. So at the end of the day, a person will have to make that decision on his own. There is no science or magic button to press to answer that question, and there never will be.

This was the fatal blow to his logic: One of the theorems built on top of cantors work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

 

[SixNein]

I didn't say it was.



If you mean that it's hypocritical for the one who says, "I believe god does not exist" to assert that he is more correct than the one who says "I believe god does exist", then I would agree with you. I wouldn't say either one of those things. Instead I say "I do not believe that god exists", which is perfectly in line with scientific evidence.

My point to you was that you say, "god can not be disproven" as though this should give scientists pause to consider it. It shouldn't. The fact that god isn't falsifiable is precisely the reason that "god" is ignorable.

Then you agree with me. Both are statements of faith.