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.

 

Philosophy of god, science, and nothing

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Admittedly I haven't read through the entire thread, so if this has been said, I apologize.

I realize you are arguing from a philosophical point of view, but your initial premise is flawed. "Science" doesn't argue or state that the universe came from nothing. Ask any physicist what preceded the "Big Bang" and you will find they don't know. Some will even say there is no way to know what came before the bang. Some will offer opinions or hypotheses based on their subscribed beliefs (like contraction/expansion or membranes touching to set off the spark).

However, they never state that there was nothing before the something. Only that we don't know what came before because we can't observe any data before the bang. The notion that "science" claims nothing came before is a straw man argument put forth to discredit (or show absurdity in) the theory.
edit on 7/4/12 by solomons path because: (no reason given)


Aw no, I've watched too many documentaries to be able to pick out the ones with physicists saying there was nothing before the Big Bang. Not even time. But I know I've heard more than once, otherwise I wouldn't have remembered it.




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Well then please enlighten me . . .

An article, video clip, excerpt from a book . . . from an actual physicist that I can verify their credentials? I would love to hear their reasoning for positing such.

Einstein's theories do support the idea that time could not begin until the expansion of this universe from it's initial singularity. However, that is because his work led back to the singularity and says nothing about before. If there is no data on a before, then we cannot state that time existed before. Also, time is relative to the progression of this universe (unique to the conditions we are measuring - laws of gravity/motion/energy/etc).

However, it's been almost 100 years since Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity. We now have expanded and even revised his models to include quantum/string/m and are continually doing so, as more data is analyzed.

I'll admit, I can remember seeing old documentaries in the 70's an early 80's that over-simplified the concepts so "people at home" could understand where they stated "before the big bang, there was nothing" or something to that effect. But, you won't find a physicist who actually works in the field of cosmology state something like that. Again, it's misrepresentation of the facts.

Here is a clip from "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan - this is from 1980 when a lot of physicists were still fighting the idea of a "Big Bang" as suggested through Einstein's models. As technology has progressed the bang and expansion has gained exceptance because all of the data points to it (you can thank things like Hubble's deep field collection and x-ray telescopes for that). But, even at this time physicists aren't saying that the universe came from nothing. Far more often than not, that is a claim used by creationists both for a God and against the Big Bang Theory (with is in itself, a weird ironic dichotomy).




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Yeah, I don't have a theory. I have hundreds of ideas that I have thought through, but nothing that I would say is absolute. Mostly because I don't think in terms of absolutes. I tend to think in terms of probability. Thus, I am not poopooing your theory, but rather just urging a little more reservation in proclamation of it.


Regardless, I don't view matter as compressed energy. I view matter as reconfigured energy. A different iteration of the same thing.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I know I'm jumping into the middle of something between you two, but . . .

I'm not claiming that there are definitely other universes, but we do know that the universe is speeding up with regards to expansion. The standard view of the bang would lead to a slowing down of expansion has galaxies separated and time had passed from the initial force of the bang. Yet, this is not the case. Currently, the reason given for this is the existence of dark energy. Physicists don't know what this dark energy is or how it acts, but it's currently the only explanation plausible for the increasing speed of expansion.

You claim we don't see and would the effects of the multi-verse hypothesis on this verse, if true. Who's to say, although you might, that this increase in the speed of expansion isn't due to the effects of other verses?

Let's say that at the bang this verse was a singularity that exploded into existence and the resulting chaos and energy sparked a multitude of galaxies that shot across space-time. While, at some point, this expansion should start to slow down as the outer verse gains distance from the point of force; however, this expansion also brings this verse closer to other verses causing the outer verse to now speed towards them and subsequently pulling the inward out (due to gravitational attraction). Realistically, unless the other verses were totally different in how they act and the laws that govern them, we would never be able to really know exactly when they start to interact with each other. Eventually, you would be right in that there would be some type of wave interference.

But, how many billions of years until that is measurable from our unique place in this verse?

Food for thought is all . . . My point is that I'd shy away from out-thinking the thinkers or making proclamtions to the truth when we are talking about distances and time-frames that are generally beyond our mind's perspective grasp.

I also disagree with you about matter being compressed energy, in that you don't seem to account for the weak force or electromagnetism . . . or maybe I just missed it in your responses.

Good debate though . . .


Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
 


If there were other universes we should at some point be able to see the waves echoing of the energy waves from our universe. The energy waves from other universes would interact with our energy. And it would change the expansion shape of our universe. depending on the direction the other universe is at. But so far we have measured our universe to be a perfect sphere. That means no interaction between our universe and an other.

This is the main reason i dont believe there exists other universes at this point in time.





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



edit on 7/4/12 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


"but we do know that the universe is speeding up with regards to expansion."

I dont think we know this as a fact,,,, even in that carl sagan clip you posted,,,, what if galaxies have a rotation around each other,,, and redshift is some kind of visable doppler effect of galaxies passing by and seeming as if they speed up when they pass by,, .,,.., also if the universe is expanding evenly,,, why at this point in time,, are there galaxies even remotely close to one another,,, wouldnt everything by now be evenly expanded apart in all directions....at an accelarating rate?


"Currently, the reason given for this is the existence of dark energy"


something i thought about dark matter and energy today actually,... What happens to all the energy/light exposed from the sun every nano second for billions of years ( what happens to all the energy from all the stars, and all the galaxies that is shot into space at all moment since the begging moment) ,,,,, could this energy be "dark matter"/dark energy?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

Ima...I would suggest you look at the WMAP....or Background Radiation Map. Or...you could check this out......
news.discovery.com...

Or you could take a look at the various maps of Universal Dark Matter Disbursement.

Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by solomons path
 


"but we do know that the universe is speeding up with regards to expansion."

I dont think we know this as a fact,,,, even in that carl sagan clip you posted,,,, what if galaxies have a rotation around each other,,, and redshift is some kind of visable doppler effect of galaxies passing by and seeming as if they speed up when they pass by,, .,,.., also if the universe is expanding evenly,,, why at this point in time,, are there galaxies even remotely close to one another,,, wouldnt everything by now be evenly expanded apart in all directions....at an accelarating rate?


"Currently, the reason given for this is the existence of dark energy"


something i thought about dark matter and energy today actually,... What happens to all the energy/light exposed from the sun every nano second for billions of years ( what happens to all the energy from all the stars, and all the galaxies that is shot into space at all moment since the begging moment) ,,,,, could this energy be "dark matter"/dark energy?


Good questions! Keep in mind that the Sagan piece was based off of research and ideas that is now over 30 years old and we have many more advanced techniques to measure with. Today, we use a specific point of reference to measure distance and speed in the universe - specifically Type 1a supernovae. We know exactly the brightness that these events should reach us at over a certain distance due to the constant speed of light. We also know how long the event lasts for and can account for changes in brightness due to the point it is at in this cycle. With the advent of space-based telescopes we can eliminate atmospheric disturbance, which they couldn't do when Sagan recorded Cosmos and shared the view of scientists that rejected the red shift technique. Also, we now have gamma ray detection to point us to these Type 1a events. In recent years, we have been able to record data from quite a few events and they all lead to one conclusion - the universe is speeding up.

The funny thing is that the data suggests that the universe did slow down for some time after the bang and now appears to be speeding up. Which brings us to the effects and nature of dark energy and also why I question if there may be other factors leading to this, in my last post to Spy - like other verses.

Here are a couple links on the verse speeding up and it's confirmation - last year a Nobel Prize was award for the confirmation of this event.

Universe Speeding Up?

Universe Speeding Up Discovery Wins Nobel Prize in Physics

As far as dark energy, I don't know if I can agree with your thoughts. Energy given off from stars can be measured in the particles that they are known to throw into space. As I understand it, the problem with dark energy is that it should amount for 70% of our universe, yet cannot be measured in any sort of way we now have. Dark matter should account for 20% of our universe, yet is not the same as the dark clouds you see in interstellar space of nebulae because we would be able to detect that through the baryonic particles that make up those clouds. It also not made up of WIMPS or Anti-matter, as interactions with "normal" matter would give off gamma ray bursts and be detectable by our instruments.

Because it is totally undetectable, it cannot be a result of energy given off by stars or black holes. If it emitted or absorbed any type of energy or radiation we currently know about, we would be able to detect it's presence. But, it must exist or there wouldn't be enough energy to fill "space" and the universe would collapse unto itself, as "normal" matter only accounts for 5% of the known universe. Something has to be holding up and expanding the lattice work of known matter, right?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


"In recent years, we have been able to record data from quite a few events and they all lead to one conclusion - the universe is speeding up. "

if we view galaxies that are moving away from us,, and we are moving away from them,, wouldnt it seem like each time we measured they were speeding up,,, but really because the distance is just doubling between us,,,,,,


"Because it is totally undetectable, it cannot be a result of energy given off by stars or black holes. If it emitted or absorbed any type of energy or radiation we currently know about, we would be able to detect it's presence."


im saying maybe it would be impossible to detect all the galaxies and stars diffuse energy in space because it is not clustered together like matter we know of,,,,, when we peer into extremely vast expanses of space,,,, we cant detect the energy because it is so spread out,,,like detecting single photons,,,, even though there are magillions in space,,, its just that space is so much vaster then the photons,,, maybe this burning of energy,,, galacticly via black holes,,, and solar systemly through stars,,, is why the universe is expanding with accelration,,, like rocket propulsion,,,,, though it is using its spread out energy to create larger expanses of space in a smaller passage of time,,,,,,,,,



I really dont "believe" some of astrophysics "beliefs" I contemplate what they believe,,,, i think the thoughts,,,, but it seems too often they have conclusions,, and then blind themselves by making the data fit the conclusions,,,,, building a model of the universe using what they wish or imagine or think the universe to be,,,, not trying to be completely objective and take in every possibility of what the universe may be,, and how exactly it may be..



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

Ima...I would suggest you look at the WMAP....or Background Radiation Map. Or...you could check this out......
news.discovery.com...

Or you could take a look at the various maps of Universal Dark Matter Disbursement.

Split Infinity


The only thing background radiation can be is proof of the big bang right?

the only thing dark matter can be,, is a variable which equals proof for the expanding accelerating universe which equals proof for the big bang right?

those are all those 2 things can be and mean?

so I might as well just take your word for it and believe what you say?



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

Yeah....that's sounds about right....look at the evidence then just believe what I say! LOL! Sorry! LOL!

I couldn't resist! LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by kissy princess
 


The Theist can account for the reason for the Big-Bang, whereas the Atheist may have a difficult time explaining just how something (the energy which culminated in the Big Bang) came from nothing.

This thread reminds me of mediaeval astronomers arguing with each other about what paths the Sun and the planets followed as they went round the Earth. Your post is a particularly vivid example of that, but what I have to say applies to the whole thread.

Let's start with a quote from the OP:


Originally posted by jiggerj
Science suggests that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

This is absolutely true. However, not one of the people posting in this thread seems to understand the full implications of it.

When we say there was nothing before the Big Bang, we mean just that. Not just no matter and no energy, but no time or space either.

Time is not absolute. There is no Big Clock hidden away somewhere, ticking off the instants of eternity. Nor is there an absolute space surrounding universal spacetime. There is no reason why such things must exist, nor is there any evidence at all that they do. On the contrary, all the evidence we have insists that they don't.

This is not some wild new idea. It has been scientific orthodoxy for more than a hundred years.

Both time and space began with the universe. When we say there was nothing before the Big Bang, we really mean it. There was no time. There was no space. There was no 'before'.

*


I would also like to draw everyone's attention to this post by maes9, which quite correctly debunks the OP's stated assumption. Well done!


edit on 5/7/12 by Astyanax because: of displacement.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


"Both time and space began with the universe. When we say there was nothing before the Big Bang, we really mean it. There was no time. There was no space. There was no 'before'"


pics or it didnt happen!!!

you were there werent you?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





Time is not absolute. There is no Big Clock hidden away somewhere, ticking off the instants of eternity. Nor is there an absolute space surrounding universal spacetime. There is no reason why such things must exist, nor is there any evidence at all that they do. On the contrary, all the evidence we have insists that they don't.

This is not some wild new idea. It has been scientific orthodoxy for more than a hundred years.

Both time and space began with the universe. When we say there was nothing before the Big Bang, we really mean it. There was no time. There was no space. There was no 'before'.


Really???

There was no absolute space before the big bang?

So if there was no absolute space before the Big Bang. What would you have?

If you take away a volume of space. Does that mean there wont be a volume of space left?

Just because there is no time does not indicate that there cannot exist a absolute space. As a matter of fact; that is what such a space would indicate. It indicates that a space without time is absolute.

It is time that is not absolute.

This is what i have been saying all the time: Some people just don't know the difference between a universe and empty space. People just cant get their head around the fact that matter takes up space.

All matter is a minimum of 3 dimensions. Because they are always surrounded by a volume of space. You cannot have a matter or a energy wave that is not surrounded by a volume of space/void. There is not one thing you can mention that is not surrounded by a volume of space/void. I dare you to give us a example?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


So if there was no absolute space before the Big Bang. What would you have?

Nothing.


If you take away a volume of space. Does that mean there wont be a volume of space left?

That is correct.


There is not one thing you can mention that is not surrounded by a volume of space/void. I dare you to give us a example?

The universe.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


So nothing dosent have a volume?

Can i ask you how large nothing is? Is it larger than our universe? Or is it smaller?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

I am afraid I cannot tell you how big nothing is. And now, if you don't mind, I have things to do.


edit on 5/7/12 by Astyanax because: my earlier reply was a bit rude.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Well then please enlighten me . . .

An article, video clip, excerpt from a book . . . from an actual physicist that I can verify their credentials? I would love to hear their reasoning for positing such.

Einstein's theories do support the idea that time could not begin until the expansion of this universe from it's initial singularity. However, that is because his work led back to the singularity and says nothing about before. If there is no data on a before, then we cannot state that time existed before. Also, time is relative to the progression of this universe (unique to the conditions we are measuring - laws of gravity/motion/energy/etc).

However, it's been almost 100 years since Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity. We now have expanded and even revised his models to include quantum/string/m and are continually doing so, as more data is analyzed.

I'll admit, I can remember seeing old documentaries in the 70's an early 80's that over-simplified the concepts so "people at home" could understand where they stated "before the big bang, there was nothing" or something to that effect. But, you won't find a physicist who actually works in the field of cosmology state something like that. Again, it's misrepresentation of the facts.

Here is a clip from "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan - this is from 1980 when a lot of physicists were still fighting the idea of a "Big Bang" as suggested through Einstein's models. As technology has progressed the bang and expansion has gained exceptance because all of the data points to it (you can thank things like Hubble's deep field collection and x-ray telescopes for that). But, even at this time physicists aren't saying that the universe came from nothing. Far more often than not, that is a claim used by creationists both for a God and against the Big Bang Theory (with is in itself, a weird ironic dichotomy).



I don't want to waste my time searching for something that I don't believe in anyway. So, I did a quick google and the first link on the list had this:

www.christianpost.com...



He concluded, "You can't get to a time before the big bang because there was no before the big bang. We have finally found something that doesn't have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means there is no possibility of a Creator because there is no time for a Creator to have existed." "Since time itself began at the moment of the big bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything."



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


If you try to tell how large "nothing" is, it becomes "something".

THis is the whole idea behind the whole "you cannot have one without the other" that I mentioned earlier. Once you are aware of nothingness, then that nothingness becomes something.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by spy66
 


If you try to tell how large "nothing" is, it becomes "something".

THis is the whole idea behind the whole "you cannot have one without the other" that I mentioned earlier. Once you are aware of nothingness, then that nothingness becomes something.


Exactly; Nothingness is something. Or you and the other guy wouldn't have mentioned it. You couldn't have used it as a argument if it didn't exist.

Something must have existed for something to become time. There is less time in the vacuum of space. Why is that. Why dosent space have a equal amount of time?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Perhaps "nothing" is similar to a wave function? This is something that would take me some time to contemplate, and I approach it strictly from a philosophical standpoint (vs the scientific viewpoint of Astayanax).

But it would seem that "nothing" can exist until the point that it is realized that there is "nothing" there, at which point it becomes something. To me, this sounds like an analogy to the collapsing of the wave function.

It would also be a concept that supports "brane theory", which is something I am particularly fond of (where "nothing" creates perturbations that cause a "big bang" to happen, thus creating something).



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join