OK, there are no life forms beyound planet Earth that we actually know of

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Phage
You mean Turtles?

That is exactly what I meant. And they're on top of Monkees.

So that's turtles all the way down until you hit monkeys, and then monkeys all the (rest of) the way down.
Glad that's ironed out.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
So that's turtles all the way down until you hit monkeys, and then monkeys all the (rest of) the way down.
Glad that's ironed out.

Harte

It's possible there are other bands down there with animal monikers like The Birds but that's a very theosophical consideration and I'm too shallow a thinker to ponder it.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
I just wonder why everyone seems to assume beginnings and endings. Just to use the word "birth" implies beginning.

Beginnings and endings are linear thinking. What if it is not a linear process?

The current Big Bang Theory is based on evidence. As has been stated previously in this thread, the confirmed expansion of the universe (which is actually the expansion of space itself,) naturally leads to the conclusion that the universe (that's space AND time) was once a single supermassive point.

The expansion was well known and documented, and the Big Bang Theory was proposed, long before there was every any further evidence. Fred Hoyle's "Steady State" theory even allows for this expansion, because it is an established fact.

In the 1960's the cosmic background radiation was discovered, and it matched perfectly what the Big Bang Theory predicted would remain this long after the bang. That's when the Steady State theory fell out of favor.

The Big Bang has real problems though, at least in its current form. When it's combined with what's known about the quanta, the result in no way matches what we see when we look at the universe today.

My takeaway from the above is that the universe had a beginning, probably as a ridiculously massive singularity. Then the singularity expanded into what we see today. The actual mechnism for that expansion hasn't exactly been established as of right now.

This is why, at least in the sense of the universe, people believe in its beginning.

Regarding the ending, that's up for debate. "Heat death," "Big Crunch," or something else.
It's your pick.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Right.

I would like to add that (at least in my opinion) what you are saying only applies to the beginning of our universe, our existence.

I think it is possible that "the totality of existence" is larger than just our universe, and in that totality of existence (which, granted, I cannot define) there may have been other universes before ours and/or coexisting with ours.

While our universe is the only one that is relevant to us and our existence, it seems possible that our universe is not the only to ever exist. Those universe may be impossible to fathom (and impossible for us to visit) because they may have completely different physical properties as our own, but that doesn't mean there can't be some version of an intelligent being in that universe (either past universe or "current" coexisting universe) pondering the questions we ponder.

a reply to: Harte

Forgive my 1960s/1970s science education, and you can throw rocks at me for being picky, but;

The current Big Bang Theory is based on evidence. As has been stated previously in this thread, the confirmed expansion of the universe (which is actually the expansion of space itself,) naturally leads to the conclusion that the universe (that's space AND time) was once a single supermassive point.

The expansion was well known and documented, and the Big Bang Theory was proposed, long before there was every any further evidence. Fred Hoyle's "Steady State" theory even allows for this expansion, because it is an established fact.

In the 1960's the cosmic background radiation was discovered, and it matched perfectly what the Big Bang Theory predicted would remain this long after the bang. That's when the Steady State theory fell out of favor.

The Big Bang has real problems though, at least in its current form. When it's combined with what's known about the quanta, the result in no way matches what we see when we look at the universe today.

My takeaway from the above is that the universe had a beginning, probably as a ridiculously massive singularity. Then the singularity expanded into what we see today. The actual mechnism for that expansion hasn't exactly been established as of right now.

This is why, at least in the sense of the universe, people believe in its beginning.

Regarding the ending, that's up for debate. "Heat death," "Big Crunch," or something else.
It's your pick.

I'm sorry" but I honestly can't accept that "(snip) . . . . .the universe (that's space AND time) was once a single supermassive point.".

Nothing before and nothing after?

No, I am sorry, to me that sounds like a god created everything from nothing.

I think I will back out and leave this for you guys. Science can say whatever it likes and I'll just continue on thinking that some things have always been, and always will be.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Harte

Forgive my 1960s/1970s science education, and you can throw rocks at me for being picky, but;

The current Big Bang Theory is based on evidence. As has been stated previously in this thread, the confirmed expansion of the universe (which is actually the expansion of space itself,) naturally leads to the conclusion that the universe (that's space AND time) was once a single supermassive point.

The expansion was well known and documented, and the Big Bang Theory was proposed, long before there was every any further evidence. Fred Hoyle's "Steady State" theory even allows for this expansion, because it is an established fact.

In the 1960's the cosmic background radiation was discovered, and it matched perfectly what the Big Bang Theory predicted would remain this long after the bang. That's when the Steady State theory fell out of favor.

The Big Bang has real problems though, at least in its current form. When it's combined with what's known about the quanta, the result in no way matches what we see when we look at the universe today.

My takeaway from the above is that the universe had a beginning, probably as a ridiculously massive singularity. Then the singularity expanded into what we see today. The actual mechnism for that expansion hasn't exactly been established as of right now.

This is why, at least in the sense of the universe, people believe in its beginning.

Regarding the ending, that's up for debate. "Heat death," "Big Crunch," or something else.
It's your pick.

I'm sorry" but I honestly can't accept that "(snip) . . . . .the universe (that's space AND time) was once a single supermassive point.".

Nothing before and nothing after?

No, I am sorry, to me that sounds like a god created everything from nothing.

I think I will back out and leave this for you guys. Science can say whatever it likes and I'll just continue on thinking that some things have always been, and always will be.

The standard Big Bang Theory does not say that there was nothing before. In general, it is silent on the issue of "What banged" and "where did the bang come from".

The Big Bang theory only describes the instant after the Big bang and onward -- i.e., the events after the actual Big Bang itself that led to the universe we see today.

That leaves room for a universe that might have come before it, or a "superexistence" in which universes (such as ours and potentially other) exist. The Big Bang does not preclude the existence of such universes that came beofre or existing alongside ours.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Harte

Right.

I would like to add that (at least in my opinion) what you are saying only applies to the beginning of our universe, our existence.

I think it is possible that "the totality of existence" is larger than just our universe, and in that totality of existence (which, granted, I cannot define) there may have been other universes before ours and/or coexisting with ours.

The "M" Theory variant of String Theory says about as much.

Harte

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The standard Big Bang Theory does not say that there was nothing before. In general, it is silent on the issue of "What banged" and "where did the bang come from". The Big Bang theory only describes the instant after the Big bang and onward -- i.e., the events after the actual Big Bang itself that led to the universe we see today. That leaves room for a universe that might have come before it, or a "superexistence" in which universes (such as ours and potentially other) exist. The Big Bang does not preclude the existence of such universes that came beofre or existing alongside ours.

Fair enough, the omissions perhaps gives a false idea. yet it still looks to me as if a line was drawn in the sand and called; "the beginning".

"The current Big Bang Theory is based on evidence." -- Harte a post or two above.

Maybe so, but to a layman; measurements, equations and theoretical conjecture can appear to be less then solid evidence and not evidence at all if it cannot be understood. And science changes it's mind occasionally and then acts like they never thought otherwise, that doesn't help with credibility.

One thing that surprised me once, was to see an astrophysicist with new hubble images of a nebula and wondrously describing the nebula as a nursery (of stars). One could tell from his voice and animated expressions that he was filled with wonder and enthusiasm at what he was learning from the new images.

Just from my perspective, I think there is a lot more to what we see looking up at the sky at night then some of the theories out there in the scientific mind.

My own views are based on having Nature Spirits as friends who will occasionally share memories that extend back through their ancestral hierarchy to times before the earth was even here. For me, from my own perspective memories shared is evidence too.

Maybe one could say points of view are relative.