Before The Big Bang

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

... I don't necessarily believe any type of deity is required to to make such laws


And I believe such a deity is most definitely required. There, we have ourselves a stalemate


You also have to ask where the laws of physics are "encoded" so that everything follows them. What defines those laws, rather than the wave-form of space-time being allowed to locally pick its own laws or just do whatever it wants like some self-righteous teenager? Why does space-time exist at all? Why does "reality" exist? Why doesn't nothing exist? The fact that nothing isn't all that exist is something you have to deal with...it's hardly enough to say 'it exists because it exists.'




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 



And I believe such a deity is most definitely required. There, we have ourselves a stalemate

Haha, I knew we were going to reach this position in the debate eventually.


You also have to ask where the laws of physics are "encoded" so that everything follows them.

Like I said, I think all laws of the Universe arise from simpler laws, until eventually you get to the most fundamental law (being that space-time fluctuates as a wave) which is simply an inherit feature of reality... of course I can't exactly explain why it is an inherent feature but one day I hope to crack that question.


What defines those laws, rather than the wave-form of space-time being allowed to locally pick its own laws or just do whatever it wants like some self-righteous teenager? Why does space-time exist at all?

And what defines the so called deity? Why does it exist at all? What laws govern it and where did those laws come from? As I said, it seems to me the only thing this logic produces is an infinite loop, meaning we can't reach a solid answer for why anything exists... but of course there must be an answer.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
 



The infinite is a dimension right? would you agree?

No I wouldn't agree... I would say the dimensions of 3D space could extend in all directions for an infinite length, but I would not say infinity is a dimension. Although when I think about more carefully, it's possible to have an infinite amount of points between any given space, the result of which is something like a dimension of infinity. That's the only way I can understand it.


Its funny that you state that the universe is flat and infinite. But you can't agree that this image can represent the infinite?

It is flat. It also has volume. But since there is no other dimensions present you wont get that impression that the 2nd 3rd and 4th dimension is present, because they are not. This is just the infinite space. It stretches infinite in all directions. Its just that you can't see depth. If there is nothing there to give reference of depth.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Haha, I knew we were going to reach this position in the debate eventually.


I'm just glad to be the one to do it.



And what defines the so called deity? Why does it exist at all? What laws govern it and where did those laws come from? As I said, it seems to me the only thing this logic produces is an infinite loop, meaning we can't reach a solid answer for why anything exists... but of course there must be an answer.


Explaining a deity beyond our own perception and reality is less of a requirement than explaining the origins of the reality we perceive. To get an answer to the former, you'd have to ask the deity...I'm sure he could give you a satisfactory answer.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Well here's how Lawrence Krauss would answer your question:

The Universe is flat. It has zero total energy and it could have begun from nothing. And I've written a piece, of course I got a lot of hate mail, saying that in my mind this answers the crazy question that religious people always keep throwing out, which is - "why is there something rather than nothing". The answer is there had to be... if you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something. It's that simple.


Of course, the key words in this statement are "in quantum mechanics"...


Although in essence that's pretty much how I would explain it, which I've already attempted to do.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
If the first dimension is infinite. There must be a deity present to create changes. Because the infinite is a constant that wont change without reason. There are no other powers present to create a cause.

To say that something appears out of nothing is just a temporary argument until more can be learned.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



To say that something appears out of nothing is just a temporary argument until more can be learned.

Things don't necessarily appear out of nothing, it's more accurate to say the fabric of reality (space-time) fluctuates like a wave... I believe this is just a natural inherit feature of the universe, because the fabric of reality is a wave form, just like all particles can be described as a particle-wave, nothing is absolutely set in stone. The fabric of reality will exhibit natural signs of turbulence and the waves which appear in this fabric are the 'things'... they do not really appear from nothing in the way you imply, the overall value of the waves is zero, the total energy in the Universe is zero because there are 'negative waves' and 'positive waves'. Energy does not simply appear out of no where, the fabric of reality literally ripples and warps into the positive and negative dimensions which results in the manifestation of 'things' whilst maintaining a zero energy average. All this is explained much more eloquently in the opening post of this thread.

Anyway it's time for me to get some sleep, I'll check back later.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Well yes he still needs to account for the existence of Phi. However, that's not what I was thinking. In order for Phi to have produced the universe, it would have to have undergone self-collapse, as nothing physical existed before the Big Bang to measure and collapse Phi.

But Roger Penrose has something interesting to say about self-collapsing wave-functions in his Orch-OR model -something that would turn Hawking's entire argument on its head.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Ajax84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

The infinite is a dimension right? would you agree?


Absolutely not! "The infinite" as you say is a concept.Concepts are not dimensions. Infinity is a human idea meaning neverending.

We perceive the universe we inhabit to have 3 dimensions:length, width, and depth. Most people today cosider time to be a fourth dimension also.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
 



To say that something appears out of nothing is just a temporary argument until more can be learned.

Things don't necessarily appear out of nothing, it's more accurate to say the fabric of reality (space-time) fluctuates like a wave... I believe this is just a natural inherit feature of the universe, because the fabric of reality is a wave form, just like all particles can be described as a particle-wave, nothing is absolutely set in stone. The fabric of reality will exhibit natural signs of turbulence and the waves which appear in this fabric are the 'things'... they do not really appear from nothing in the way you imply, the overall value of the waves is zero, the total energy in the Universe is zero because there are 'negative waves' and 'positive waves'. Energy does not simply appear out of no where, the fabric of reality literally ripples and warps into the positive and negative dimensions which results in the manifestation of 'things' whilst maintaining a zero energy average. All this is explained much more eloquently in the opening post of this thread.

Anyway it's time for me to get some sleep, I'll check back later.


If you are talking about space-time. You are talking about two different dimensions (two different things). One is space, the other is time. They have not always existed together.

Time is something that occupies space.

This is space: There is no time. If there is, can you point it out for me?


This is space with time. Time is the second dimension "the red dot" The black dimension is infinite "the first dimension".


Here is a different image of space with time. You can clearly see that they are two different things.


And here is a different image of space with time.


In this image we have two different types of space. Our universe "the sphere" and the infinite space surrounding it. "Two totally different dimensions".
When you talk about space time, you are talking about our universe (our finite dimension). Which is formed.

When you say that matter/energy can appear from the fabric of reality. You are in reality referring to our universe. Because it is the only reality we can study. All studies ever made are of our formed universe. How can we study anything else?
All your information is from within the measured sphere. You have no information about whats outside the measured area.

That is also why you state that:


Things don't necessarily appear out of nothing, it's more accurate to say the fabric of reality (space-time) fluctuates like a wave... I believe this is just a natural inherit feature of the universe, because the fabric of reality is a wave form,


This wave is within our formed universe. And has nothing to do with where energy and matter appeared from.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Our universe must have started as a singularity of some kind.


You haven't answered my question. How did this singularity escape it's own gravity?

Gravity is an obstacle both you, and this singularity need to overcome for your ideas to fall into place.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

And here is a different image of space with time.


In this image we have two different types of space. Our universe "the sphere" and the infinite space surrounding it. "Two totally different dimensions".


Do you even know what that image is?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by spy66

Our universe must have started as a singularity of some kind.


You haven't answered my question. How did this singularity escape it's own gravity?

Gravity is an obstacle both you, and this singularity need to overcome for your ideas to fall into place.


What do you mean by escape its own gravity?

I need some more input if you want me to answer you question.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Sorry but I thought the Big Bang was a theory? And anyone trying use subatomic particles as a footprint to back up a theory is bunk.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Yes, its one half of our cosmic microwave back ground hemispheres.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

What do you mean by escape its own gravity?

I need some more input if you want me to answer you question.


Are you honestly kidding me? Really?

You are attempting to argue physics without even a basic understanding of the force of gravity?


Or are you just trying to drive me out of the conversation through pure exasperation?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


So what's your point in saying that the universe is the sphere, as opposed to the space around it? The whole thing is the universe, including the infinite space around it...which, I might add, is not spherical but flat.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by spy66

What do you mean by escape its own gravity?

I need some more input if you want me to answer you question.


Are you honestly kidding me? Really?

You are attempting to argue physics without even a basic understanding of the force of gravity?


Or are you just trying to drive me out of the conversation through pure exasperation?


Sorry for asking. I wont bother you any more.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


"Like I said, I think all laws of the Universe arise from simpler laws, until eventually you get to the most fundamental law (being that space-time fluctuates as a wave) which is simply an inherit feature of reality... of course I can't exactly explain why it is an inherent feature but one day I hope to crack that question."

Can we only know how space time fluctuates as a wave presently with the complete conditions of the energy filled universe? lauernce krauss assumes that before the big bang ( before matter and energy existed) that the infinite space was under orders of quantum mechanics and that this infinite space-time inherently fluctuated as a wave... cant it be that the fluctuating of space-time as a wave and quantum mechanics are a result of the beginning of the grand process of all energy, however it started, we are now some ways into the process,,, we measure what we are a part of, we may see evidence of space-time fluctuating and quantum particles zipping around the vacuum ( like everything else) but how do we know these events arent only possible because of all that happened as the progression of the universe?

also about infinity,,,, do you speak of spatial infinity,, or aesthetic/physical infinity?.... because say potentially a tree can be made, and the concept of ball/sphere...... wouldn't a physical representation of infinity include every possible representation of "tree",,, every size, shape and color of the possibility "ball"?.... also wouldn't there always be new possibilities? wouldn't there need to be a progression of time/change,, to receive combinations of creation impossible in a physical representation of infinity that was not constantly turning and churning?
edit on 3-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by spy66
 


So what's your point in saying that the universe is the sphere, as opposed to the space around it? The whole thing is the universe, including the infinite space around it...which, I might add, is not spherical but flat.


My point is that we have classified our universe from the space surrounding it as a sphere. We have even aged it. If we can age it and measure it, it sure ain't infinite. Or as old as the space surrounding it.

I have never said that our universe is not a part of the infinite space surrounding our measured universe. I am saying that our universe exists within it.

When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?

What do you mean by flat?





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join