Origins of the Universe

[Deleted]

Read: Literal nonsense.

I can't tell if you're intentionally trying to mislead people, you are actually dense as shit or you have a mental illness.

Infracted

[Garnier Fructis]

True Space is infinite in size, and is the true definition of "nothing." It doesn't stretch, it doesn't compress, it doesn't move... it just is.

True Time is equally infinite, and is quite literally nothing but a concept; the order in which events occur. It, too, does not stretch, compress, or alter in any way whatsoever.

Space-Time is neither True Space nor True Time. It just exists in it. And because its its own thing, it's perfectly acceptable that it stretches, compresses, etc. At least relative to a given observer.

The big problem is that physicists refuse to acknowledge True Space and True Time, and believe (yes, believe) that our particular Space-Time is the end-all be-all there is to the universe.

Maybe physicists don't accept 'true space' and 'true time' because those concepts are literally useless in post-Newtonian physics. Why would we stick to something for which there is no evidence, and which we do not need at all in our theories?

- - - Updated - - -

I can't tell if you're intentionally trying to mislead people, you are actually dense as shit or you have a mental illness.

It's what happens when someone reads a popular account of the Big Bang, which is necessarily imprecise, and proceeds to attribute that impreciseness to the theory itself. Then, instead of considering the possibility that they don't actually know, they conclude instead that they've discovered some huge flaw and proceed to come up with their own BS.

[wheresmywoft]

For a non scientist like myself, it is not a cop out, but a simple and easy answer.

How does this make it not a cop out? You cared about simple and easy over whether or not something is true.

[Souflikar]

Science doesn't know, religions claim to know. Let's be honest, at this point in time, no one really knows.

[ShimmerSwirl]

scientist will very happily tell you he doesn't KNOW what happened at the beginning of the universe, but he has some very good ideas. Extremely superior ideas to, large, bearded man made it in 8 days and used extra care when making this specific, insignificant planet.

Your hyperbolic bias displayed here is what makes it hard for me to take a scientist like yourself seriously. You have already dismissed the possibility that the universe's origin could beyond the scope of what science can measure. You have chosen to put the origin question within the confines of your science box, refusing to acknowledge that that box could be stopping you from answering the question. This is a close minded approach, one that denies a possibility for answering a question that science does not have an answer for. How can an honest scientist dismiss an entire possibility when there is no evidence to support an alternate conclusion? That is not the honest and open pursuit of truth, it is rather sticking to a predefined narrative regardless of how plausible or implausible it might be.

[vindicatorx]

So it really comes down to how far you want to retreat into 'yeah but we can't be 100% sure' territory.

Any chance at all makes it not 100% doesn't it? .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance still isn't 100%, and that's all there is to it.

- - - Updated - - -

They say the universe just appeared out of nothing one day.

Who said that?

[Deleted]

I'm fine with the explanation in the Book of Genesis.

Fucking hate Phil Collins.

[wheresmywoft]

And this is, to me, the major weakness of science. Following this rule of thought is, in my opinion, not so different from adhering to a religious system. Its a arbitrarily defined rule that has shaped the entire worldview of those who follow (dare I say believe) it. Excluding the metaphysical world from consideration when approaching these questions is denying a potential avenue for answering the question. Particularly when science is at a loss when trying to explain the origin of the universe, why not consider the metaphysical realm?

I do agree there is no answer for "who made the Creator", but I don't see how that question is different from the "where did anything come from?" that a non-theist would ask.

The fact that it doesn't include what we cannot observe is its major weakness? What is it that you would want it to do with regards to that which is not observable?

The fact that something is not impossible isn't a great starting point for someone to claim that it is true. It just puts it at the same level as other also unsupported claims.

[Calfredd]

You are literally nonsensical.

I would not put stock nor even pay attention to him. I could have sworn he spoke more coherently before but he's mostly been doing these odd ramblings for a while now.

[Adam Jensen]

ordinary space: Ordinary ? what is ordinary ? => BS
primeval state : primeval ? what is primeval ? => BS
virtual particle : virtual ? what is virtual ? => BS
false vacuum : false ? what is love, baby don't hurt me....

" All matter and energy of the entire visible universe " => what ... w h a t ?
" unimaginably hot " : unimaginably .... sounds tangible/10. Even hot makes no sense.
" dense point " : a point is for sure a singularity of proof, dense as fuck.


I don't continue, the superiority of your intelligence is so beyond, it's like LE particle desert.

Because you don't know what intuitive means ?
Maybe not, so now you think you can judge me based on what ? Nothing, because I don't think that TIME is a notion very intuitive, it's the less intuitive notion possible, and what you can't even understand is that this "" intuitive BULLSHIT " IS THE SCIENCE THAT YOU ARE DEFENDING NOW.

How can the TIME be intuitive ?... According to your science, you just have to describe a space event and voilà time-space.

The worst about all those who want to deny this simple fact, don't even understand that macrocosm = microcosm.

If everything has a purpose, a microstate, then via an expansion, achieving a new form, what is the evolution of an astral body ''uncorrupted" like the one, we are on, now ?

Answer, this should be easy... and don't say that a "planet+moon+sun+else has no evolution possible...

You just want to explain things with boom and kaboom, because the pyromancy is your only option.




Then you better learn what an EXplosion means... teach how can space be saturated so early ?

So much wrong and so little time.

First of all, it's not an explosion, not in the every day sense of the word. The "Big Bang" is a misnomer, and in fact, was given as a way to mock LeMaitre's theory before it became the theory most scientists agreed upon.

It was an expansion of space at every point. An explosion is an expansion of gas and pressure from a central point. The Big Bang was the expansion of space at every point.

" All matter and energy of the entire visible universe " => what ... w h a t ?

Because light has a finite speed, there's a finite distance to what we can see. As such, that boundary is right now somewhere around 43 billion lightyears away. We can never see what is beyond that edge due to the expansion of space. The universe does not end there, there's probably more galaxies and stars beyond, but we'll never see it because the light can never reach earth from that great of a distance. The distance is too vast; by the time the light makes any significant progress, space will have expanded too much to undo any progress the light made.

" unimaginably hot " : unimaginably .... sounds tangible/10. Even hot makes no sense.

Temperature degrees that exceed the millions (and in terms of the Big Bang, the trillions) are unimaginable. Can you imagine touching the interior of the sun? Some of the temperatures released near the big bang have been reproduced in particle colliders here on earth.

" dense point " : a point is for sure a singularity of proof, dense as fuck.

Yes, dense. The universe smaller than an atom, containing within it everything that ever will be. The problem is that at such a small scale, we can no longer predict what happens, and thus the origin of the Big Bang, as well as the Planck Epoch, remain a mystery.

ordinary space: Ordinary ? what is ordinary ? => BS
primeval state : primeval ? what is primeval ? => BS
virtual particle : virtual ? what is virtual ? => BS
false vacuum : false ? what is love, baby don't hurt me....

Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't make it wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

Maybe that'll get you started, but I'm not doing your research for you.

You just want to explain things with boom and kaboom, because the pyromancy is your only option.

Fire is the release of heat and energy from carbon and oxygen. Those things did not exist at the beginning of time. The idea that the universe started in a "fireball" is therefore a misconception, as much as it is a misconception to call it an "explosion."

And when you say "space is saturated," saturated with what? Matter? Matter is fairly evenly spread out at very large distances. The universe is homogenous.

- - - Updated - - -

Your hyperbolic bias displayed here is what makes it hard for me to take a scientist like yourself seriously. You have already dismissed the possibility that the universe's origin could beyond the scope of what science can measure. You have chosen to put the origin question within the confines of your science box, refusing to acknowledge that that box could be stopping you from answering the question. This is a close minded approach, one that denies a possibility for answering a question that science does not have an answer for. How can an honest scientist dismiss an entire possibility when there is no evidence to support an alternate conclusion? That is not the honest and open pursuit of truth, it is rather sticking to a predefined narrative regardless of how plausible or implausible it might be.

The beginning of the universe is beyond what scientists can measure. There's a good chance we'll never know what sparked the big bang or what happened in the Planck Epoch.

But they don't make assumptions on any truth either. Neither the multiverse, nor God, can be placed in the realm of science. And I say that knowing many scientists espouse the idea of a multiverse, but they all recognize that it is an idea, not a theory.

[Aucald]

I'm of the personal belief that the universe is cyclical on its own terms - the "Big Bang" is the unfathomably powerful expansion of the observable universe from a single point in space, leaving a vast aperture in space that we would probably call a Black Hole (although one so vast as to be unimaginable). Over countless measures of time the universe's primeval momentum will decline as the outward forces dissipate, and the aperture left by the Big Bang will slowly draw all matter back to it in what is known as a "Big Crunch." Eventually the universe will collapse once more into a single point, and after sufficient time an energetic reaction within that point will initiate a second Big Bang and lead to the creation of a new universe.

This process could've repeated itself an unknown number of times, and our universe could be just one in a nigh endless iteration of universes organized on completely different principles, patterns, or even fundamental laws of physical space. Of course this is all hypothesizing and speculation based on available knowledge - the truth of the beginning of our universe is ineffable, much like the ultimate destiny or fate of our universe. The entirety of humankind's existence doesn't even merit the phrase "blink of the eye" compared to the vastness of universe's measure of time.

[Adam Jensen]

I'm of the personal belief that the universe is cyclical on its own terms - the "Big Bang" is the unfathomably powerful expansion of the observable universe from a single point in space, leaving a vast aperture in space that we would probably call a Black Hole (although one so vast as to be unimaginable). Over countless measures of time the universe's primeval momentum will decline as the outward forces dissipate, and the aperture left by the Big Bang will slowly draw all matter back to it in what is known as a "Big Crunch." Eventually the universe will collapse once more into a single point, and after sufficient time an energetic reaction within that point will initiate a second Big Bang and lead to the creation of a new universe.

This process could've repeated itself an unknown number of times, and our universe could be just one in a nigh endless iteration of universes organized on completely different principles, patterns, or even fundamental laws of physical space. Of course this is all hypothesizing and speculation based on available knowledge - the truth of the beginning of our universe is ineffable, much like the ultimate destiny or fate of our universe. The entirety of humankind's existence doesn't even merit the phrase "blink of the eye" compared to the vastness of universe's measure of time.

It's possible, but our observations tend towards an open and ever expanding universe.

However, given the massive scale of the universe, we might just be unable to see how space eventual curves back inwards. So who knows?

[Aucald]

It's possible, but our observations tend towards an open and ever expanding universe.

However, given the massive scale of the universe, we might just be unable to see how space eventual curves back inwards. So who knows?

I have issues with any phenomenon being essentially infinite in blatant defiance of what we know about energetic reactions, but as you said: "who knows?" Doesn't matter overly as both I and this very planet will be so much dust and ash in frozen space before the universe ever begins moving back towards its point of origin, if it ever does.

[Adam Jensen]

I have issues with any phenomenon being essentially infinite in blatant defiance of what we know about energetic reactions, but as you said: "who knows?" Doesn't matter overly as both I and this very planet will be so much dust and ash in frozen space before the universe ever begins moving back towards its point of origin, if it ever does.

But even the big bang/big crunch is still infinite.

Like it or not, dealing with cosmology means dealing with infinity. Probably, anyways. And infinity is a powerfully counter-intuitive concept.

[Garnier Fructis]

Any chance at all makes it not 100% doesn't it? .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance still isn't 100%, and that's all there is to it.

And I'm making the case that your objection basically just boils down to the tautology that there's no definitive proof in science. Which is just a pedantic objection to the original post you took issue with. It's technically true, but also a mostly useless concept insofar as advancing knowledge or getting anything done.

[May90]

Nothing does not exist (as far as we know so far). There is something everywhere in the universe on the quantum level (microscopic if you want). Nothingness is a concept invented by humans. We have NO example of it.

The problem is that nothing is supposed to be the opposite of something, but since we define nothing, it has to be something... In a way, nothing is a subset of something. It is a purely dictionary issue. In reality, of course there can be nothing: what is beyond our Universe? Nothing, from our current view. However, the very fact that we speak of the "beyond our Universe" implies that it is some entity to speak of, hence something, so, again, we fall into the dictionary trap here.

Any chance at all makes it not 100% doesn't it? .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance still isn't 100%, and that's all there is to it.

If there is a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of something, then one would be a fool to expect this chance to materialize in our Universe. There is a certain practical level of confidence (3 sigma and 5 sigma are pretty common in various fields, and both are much-much smaller than the confidence level you mentioned) beyond which we accept a claim to be true, because the expenses on studying a very implausible alternative won't be covered by results realistically.

Of course, one should always keep an open mind... But assuming that nothing is true because we can never prove anything with 100% certainty, hence all possibilities should be considered equally, isn't going to lead to a very productive science.

[vindicatorx]

Of course, one should always keep an open mind... But assuming that nothing is true because we can never prove anything with 100% certainty, hence all possibilities should be considered equally, isn't going to lead to a very productive science.

Whomever said that? I suggest you read my first post. My complaint was the expectation to prove that a god doesn't exist to which I said it's impossible to 100% prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. To which I got logical and math proofs as arguments that you can which doesn't really work in the real world setting.

[May90]

Whomever said that? I suggest you read my first post. My complaint was the expectation to prove that a god doesn't exist to which I said it's impossible to 100% prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. To which I got logical and math proofs as arguments that you can which doesn't really work in the real world setting.

Well, of course, I agree with this statement in itself. However, my point is (which does not contradict yours, but is important to emphasize) is that proving that something doesn't exist with 100% certainty isn't a requirement for practical rejection of the possibility of its existence. If, after all these thousands years, we haven't found any evidence of "god", and we tried hard - then, most likely, it doesn't exist, or, if it does, it is unlikely to be anything like what religious people expect it to be.

There is no need to prove the non-existence of god in this case, it is enough to point out that its existence is not supported by evidence.

[Lokryn]

We don't really know. Not being a scientist myself, I took Pascal's Wager and believe in God. But I recognize that I could be wrong. I tend to think like Jordan Peterson on the subject.

[wheresmywoft]

We don't really know. Not being a scientist myself, I took Pascal's Wager and believe in God. But I recognize that I could be wrong. I tend to think like Jordan Peterson on the subject.

Can you explain why you're taking Pascal's wager while also understanding that it could be wrong?

Usually the understanding that one could be wrong with regard's to Pascals Wager is what deters people from taking the wager.