It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can the universe just "be"?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
I am almost convinced that their isn't; but again, just my personal opinion.


How can you believe that? Ok, it was ignorant of me to say that it is an obvious reality, but i'm just wondering now, what makes you think, or has you almost convinced there is no other life out there in the universe?




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx

Originally posted by Umbrax

If one can believe God was not created, then why is it hard to believe that we (or the Universe) was not created.


Isn't that kind of going against itself? The people who believe in god believe he created the universe. Haha i've read what you said like 20 times now, the wording is hard for my small brain. I dont know nevermind.. kind of.


Heh, thats cool its after 1 in the morning for you (after 2 for me
).
I'll reword what I said.
If a person can believe that God can exist with out being created, then why is it hard to believe that man was not created.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Ok, so if I am understanding you.. The people that believe in god believe that he created us. The people that don't believe in god don't... ha obviously. Ok well what you're saying is it shouldn't be hard to believe we just are, the same way god just is and was never created in the beginning. Welp that is exactly why if you don't believe in God (me) it would be so hard to believe.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
the universe had no begining, no start, because its always been here. for the universe there is almost no concept of time. the only reason we have a concept of time is because we add up 24 hours each day and so on, so we think this 'time' had to start somewhere, yet it didn't. so if time has no meaning in the universe, then its easier to understand that it just 'is'.

i think we haven't made contact with intelligent life and vice versa because space is very different to the sci-fi programs we watch. most programs and movies show space ships gliding through space with ease. yet, in reality space is much more dangerous, unknown and it would be right in saying it's almost humanly impossible to travel great distances in space. so i think for now, the other life we'll find may be on mars...maybe a few types of bacteria...oh joy.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
i've been thinking about that for a long time too... where did the big bang come from... And where did that thing that created bing bang from... I'AM GOING CRAZY IF I'AM THINKING OF IT ANYMORE... THERE IS NO ANSWEAR...



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the universe had no begining, no start, because its always been here. for the universe there is almost no concept of time. the only reason we have a concept of time is because we add up 24 hours each day and so on, so we think this 'time' had to start somewhere, yet it didn't. so if time has no meaning in the universe, then its easier to understand that it just 'is'.



wow thats actually a really good point... we only have "time" because we created to to make things easier..this revolving around how the sun comes up and goes down ahah...with no sun rise or sun set...time could not have been created...so lets say a planet out there that doesnt revolve...i dont know how it has gravitationaly pull then to make it habitable, but lets just say it doesnt revolve there for has a star's light on one side and darkness on there other...this mean if we had been in that situation...and earth was hibitable..there would have been no creation of time...hense no thought of the beginning of time...wow...what an insane thought.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maiden Mayhem

wow thats actually a really good point... we only have "time" because we created to to make things easier.


Well don't get confused. Time is a real thing. Things age, people die etc... We didn't create time, but we do use it to make things easier. If you lived on a planet with no days or measurements of time this would not stop time. The last thought of having no thoughts of the creation of time might be true. I'm sure people would still wonder where we came from. I think it would be almost impossible to function without time.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
well we have 24 hours in a day, day and night all because of our sun. because of our orbit we have 365 days in a year. so surely we did create time? maybe there is no concept of time elsewhere in the universe. because if we and planet earth weren't here, there isn't really a need for time to exist.

my brain hurts...


[edit on 6-7-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
How can you believe that? Ok, it was ignorant of me to say that it is an obvious reality, but i'm just wondering now, what makes you think, or has you almost convinced there is no other life out there in the universe?


No, it's cool. I totally respect your interpretation. I believe the way I do for many reasons; most notably, the complete lack of evidence. If we are to see the Drake Equation as true, than it would only make sense to believe that there are highly, highly advanced civilizations out there. The question is, why would they have not reached out their hand as eagerly as we are trying to do?

To counter this argument, many people say that the intelligence gap is a prime candidate. I, however, have a major problem with this. This isn't comparing humans to insects, the kind of analogies that are often stated. Logically speaking, the true test to determine if a society was ready for contact with other advanced civilizations is if they themselves are mentally capable of such a thought and are actively searching.

Since we have more than passed this point, without even a hint of contact, this and many other personal factors lead me to believe that we most likely are the only life forms in this universe. If you disagree, that's fine; I'm not lecturing or telling you what to believe, it is simply what I myself believe.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the universe had no begining, no start, because its always been here. for the universe there is almost no concept of time. the only reason we have a concept of time is because we add up 24 hours each day and so on, so we think this 'time' had to start somewhere, yet it didn't. so if time has no meaning in the universe, then its easier to understand that it just 'is'.


shaynybaby, this was addressed earlier in the tread. The steady-state theory--what you are describing--has been a dead theory for more than 40 years. It may fit your beliefs nicely, but it is simply false.

Here's a random site to explain it, but feel free to search around and see for yourself.
www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the universe had no begining, no start, because its always been here. for the universe there is almost no concept of time. the only reason we have a concept of time is because we add up 24 hours each day and so on, so we think this 'time' had to start somewhere, yet it didn't. so if time has no meaning in the universe, then its easier to understand that it just 'is'.


shaynybaby, this was addressed earlier in the tread. The steady-state theory--what you are describing--has been a dead theory for more than 40 years. It may fit your beliefs nicely, but it is simply false.

Here's a random site to explain it, but feel free to search around and see for yourself.
www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...


didn't know that. i thought i was on to something new. i hate it when you have ideas and then find out someone else has thought of that too. it was so easy to come up with new stuff 2000 years ago, it's like impossible now.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
yeah , my head hurts too ...


mans insistance on answering a question, even tho there's no easy answer

puts us in the supposed dilemma we're in.

it took me a while to accept the fact, that I won't be able to prove it, but I'm ok with it .

everything came from something...my soul/spirit , didn't "create" itself

I'm not gonna worry about where the Creator came from.



I'm more concerned about the spread of world socialism and the political liars

blackoctober , maybe this will help you chill out ;

www.astraldynamics.com...




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
didn't know that. i thought i was on to something new. i hate it when you have ideas and then find out someone else has thought of that too. it was so easy to come up with new stuff 2000 years ago, it's like impossible now.


No problem. Actually, just read up a bit on Cosmology and see what interests you. Once you get a good picture for what the theories imply, you can let your imagination run wild, while all the time remaining within the boundaries of what we know to be true. Glad to see the overall interest on this board; good luck with your reading!



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the universe had no begining, no start, because its always been here. for the universe there is almost no concept of time. the only reason we have a concept of time is because we add up 24 hours each day and so on, so we think this 'time' had to start somewhere, yet it didn't. so if time has no meaning in the universe, then its easier to understand that it just 'is'.


shaynybaby, this was addressed earlier in the tread. The steady-state theory--what you are describing--has been a dead theory for more than 40 years. It may fit your beliefs nicely, but it is simply false.



didn't know that. i thought i was on to something new. i hate it when you have ideas and then find out someone else has thought of that too. it was so easy to come up with new stuff 2000 years ago, it's like impossible now.


Don't give up so easily. There is no inconsitency with an eternal universe and the big bang. The big bang model rests on an eternal universe, and I don't mean a static model, m-branes, strings, a cyclical universe or anything else speculative.

The current notion of the big bang has time emerging concurrently. Read very carefully; there is no t=0. If you could travel backward in time, you would never reach the beginning of the universe, because the concept of time breaks down as you approach the singularity. You could get as close as you want, but you could never reach it. From such a perspective, the universe would be infinitely old, even though from our perspective it is ~15 billion years old. Relativity is not intuitive.

When people speak of the universe being "created" or having a starting point, they are implicitly assuming that time is external to the universe. But it isn't.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Actually, the Big Bang model does rest on a finite begining to the universe. You are quite correct that reaching the t=0 stage is impossible (although, physicists have gotten to t=0.00000000000000000000000000000001s--which is pretty darn close to it). But the reason that t=0 is unreachable also disproves your statement that the universe could be infititely old; that is because not only does time break down at the singularity, but so do all the laws of physics. So, making an assumption about the state of the universe at the time of the singularity is pure guesswork.

However, what we do now is that at t=0^-32 the universe was completely unstable, causing the rapid expansion known as the Inflationary Period. Since it is nonesense to talk about the universe at t=0, as the laws of physics break down, we can only look at what is was like extremely close to it. The fact that it was so unstable rules out that the universe could have existed for eternity before the expanson.

Many people for some reason are uncomfortable with the idea that the universe had a finite beginning, but there is no denying the evidence. You would really have to search hard to find any serious scientist in the field who would try to tell you otherwise.

The point is there need not be a t=0 in order to prove the universe had a beginning.


note: at 2am i hope this is making sense



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Actually, the Big Bang model does rest on a finite begining to the universe.


That is absolutely correct



Originally posted by backtoreality
Many people for some reason are uncomfortable with the idea that the universe had a finite beginning, but there is no denying the evidence. You would really have to search hard to find any serious scientist in the field who would try to tell you otherwise.


I completely agree. An eternal universe that had no beginning makes no sense.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Actually, the Big Bang model does rest on a finite begining to the universe. You are quite correct that reaching the t=0 stage is impossible


I don't think either of us is getting through to the other. If there is no such thing as t=0, then there is no beginning.


Originally posted by backtoreality
The fact that it was so unstable rules out that the universe could have existed for eternity before the expanson.


The phrase "eternal existence" means "always existing". "Always existing" means existence for all time. The universe has existed for all time. Do you deny that the universe has existed for all time?


Originally posted by backtoreality
Many people for some reason are uncomfortable with the idea that the universe had a finite beginning, but there is no denying the evidence. You would really have to search hard to find any serious scientist in the field who would try to tell you otherwise.


If there is no t=0, then there is no finite beginning. The age of the universe is bounded (~15 billion years), yet it has existed for all time, and had no beginning. With our current understanding, the phrase "the time of the singularity" is a nonsensical phrase. Stephen Hawking is a fairly serious scientist, and it is also his position that the universe has existed for all time, as well as it being nonsensical to speak of t=0.

The point that there is no t=0 (hence no beginning) is not mere semantics. It's the key to understanding how the universe can "just be". This does not rule out the possibility that the known universe is part of some other open system, but from what we know and theorize it is consistent to say "the universe just is".



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality

To counter this argument, many people say that the intelligence gap is a prime candidate. I, however, have a major problem with this. This isn't comparing humans to insects, the kind of analogies that are often stated. Logically speaking, the true test to determine if a society was ready for contact with other advanced civilizations is if they themselves are mentally capable of such a thought and are actively searching.



That doesn't mean that there is no life though. It just means they are either unadvanced, not trying to contact anyone, too far to contact us. Either way i've lost track of how life being in the universe got into this conversation.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by backtoreality
Actually, the Big Bang model does rest on a finite begining to the universe. You are quite correct that reaching the t=0 stage is impossible


I don't think either of us is getting through to the other. If there is no such thing as t=0, then there is no beginning.


Spamandham,
The fact that we cannot say what conditions were at t=0 is not the same thing as saying t=0 is nonexistent. t=0 is exactly as existent as 0 itself.


Originally posted by spamandham The phrase "eternal existence" means "always existing". "Always existing" means existence for all time. The universe has existed for all time. Do you deny that the universe has existed for all time?


Similarly, we can say that time has existed for all universe. In fact time is part of the universe; like length, depth and width. The universe is made of spacetime, not space. Spacetime came into existence at t=0.

There are many examples of things we cannot reach, but may approach at randomly smaller distances, like t=0 here. Google Xeno's paradox for more on this, better yet take a calculus class and see that approaching a limit is pretty much all we can ever do.

Harte



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Stephen Hawking is a fairly serious scientist, and it is also his position that the universe has existed for all time, as well as it being nonsensical to speak of t=0.

Obviously he agrees that speaking of t=0 is nonsensical; however, I was more interested in his belief in an eternal universe. A search of numerous sites was unable to turn up anything though. Could you provide the link for this claim? Thanks.



Originally posted by spamandham
The point that there is no t=0 (hence no beginning) is not mere semantics. It's the key to understanding how the universe can "just be". This does not rule out the possibility that the known universe is part of some other open system, but from what we know and theorize it is consistent to say "the universe just is".

Mr. Hawking did have this to say about your proposed "the universe just is" theory, which also doesn't seem to suggest a belief in an eternal universe either:



www.simpletoremember.com...



In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)"




[EDIT]: I forgot to compliment Harte on very well-stated post. Nice work.


[edit on 6-7-2005 by backtoreality]




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join