Not even Time(age),Space,Matter and other dimensions could ever exist with out a source or a CREATOR

reply to post by atlasastro

Some argue that Time needs to exist for a singularity to exist.

I would disagree with that. I'd say that for a singularity to do something there needs be time, but for it to simply exist it's not necessary.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Some argue that Time needs to exist for a singularity to exist.

I would disagree with that. I'd say that for a singularity to do something there needs be time, but for it to simply exist it's not necessary.

Fair enough, if that is your belief.
Is existing not doing something? Is it only existing when doing something? If at one point there was no singularity, and then there was, there was change, and an event, and then time is applicable wether the singularity does anything or not.

I think we can agree that due to the observation that the universe is in a state of isotropic expansion that the theory of the Big bang from singularity is supported by a time reversed extrapolation of that isotropic expansion. That a result of this time reversal gets us to a conclusion that the starting point of our finite past was an infinitely small point of density, prior to which it did not exist. Think about that for a second.
Because this is the standard big bang model.

A few things stand out for me here, i don't know about you. But here they are.
Infinitely small density, that is a quantum level. Infinitely small. This means quantum mechanics apply and so with it time.

The second thing is, that prior to this infinitely small density, it did not exist. ??????
If it is quantum, it needs time. Quantum physics are reliant on time.
And If it did not exist prior to its infinite point of density, then when it did exist, as a time it would be classified as existing at that time, in time according to the foundations of quantum mechanics. It existed as an infinitely dense quantum singularity, and then expanded.
Also, how did it go from not existing, to infinitly small and dense and then out into the universe.

Is it just creatio ex nihilo? Someone needs to address the questions relating to the rationality of Something from nothing.
The OP has a source. No one has attacked the logic of that by introducing a rational, and logical alternative opinion that relies on No source for the sudden existence of the singularity.
The Arguement of the universe existing from nothing is sitll reliant on a law that would cause the void or vacume pre big bang to create the singularity. Chance and time would not be applicable so quantum probability fails due to no time interval for the potential of quantum outcomes.
Think about this, if the universe came from nothing, the nothing had to know the universe was a potential outcome of that very nothing. There had to be a logic ,a law or a rule of potential already existing in that very nothing for our universe to just spontaneously exist, this is what an arguement would have to over come, if you take a source or creator out of the equation. In light of this, a source for creation, one like the OP expresses, seems much more logical.
Heinz Pagels, who inspired the above paragraph, argued this point with Hawking and Hartel when they used Hydrogen atoms describe as quantum mechanical wave fluctuations to describe the universe, by passing the singularity and holding that the universe just poofed into being.


Fair enough, if that is what you believe.

reply to post by atlasastro


Between the observed expansion of the universe and the background radiation signature, we haven't any reason not to be certain that universe came from an infinitely small thing.

And I try to avoid saying I 'believe' anything regarding the beginning of the universe. I'm not an astrophysicist so I'm not really informed enough to have a useful 'belief'. It's all a bit esoteric really.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by atlasastro

Between the observed expansion of the universe and the background radiation signature, we haven't any reason not to be certain that universe came from an infinitely small thing.

Theologists and creationist would agree, that is why I used the Big Bang Standard model, but there is plenty of uncertainty from many others. That is why you get people creating theory that eliminates the singularity! There is also plenty of uncertainty about many aspects of that very infinitely small thing, how it originated, its nature, what laws applied to it. I raised these uncertainties to discuss your opinion on the nature of singularities expressed here post by Good Wolf, but I guess you don't want to discuss them.

And I try to avoid saying I 'believe' anything regarding the beginning of the universe. I'm not an astrophysicist so I'm not really informed enough to have a useful 'belief'. It's all a bit esoteric really.

One word! What about my whole reply. You can avoid the word, but when you express a personal opinion on the nature of singularities at the time of the big bang, which you did do, I'm going to take it as a belief. Sorry about that. Don't worry about not being an astrophysicist, they all have beliefs about the biginning of it all too.
I understand the esoteric nature of the discussion, but for it to loss that nature you must learn about it more. I have refered to many Astrophysicists in my posts, I hope you can learn from these. What is the ATS motto?




[edit on 26-12-2008 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


The answer to the problem may be an infinite source. who knows.
However, we really don't have enough knowledge about our universe to know if that's even plausible.
It's like asking "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" - before we knew about evolution. The only 'theory' you could pin as an answer would be God or an infinite source. It's a bit of a cop-out to come to that conclusion, because not enough information is out to make an informed decision, so you pass it off to an infinite existence which leaves you with a bigger problem that you initially had (but of course no one worries about that).
Perhaps the universe is similar - perhaps the laws in our universe have evolved in a sense... I believe there's a theory that talks about that.
But I believe that we can't even comprehend what's on the outside of this bubble we call the universe.

reply to post by spy66


This doesn't make much sense to me because you start out your hypothesis with the assumption that God already exists, which is the hole in your raft of ideas. And in assuming that God exists, you then assume that he is infinite and everlasting (same mistake making presumptions to get to your next point). And then you jump from "everlasting/infinite" to "creator" then to "God" with absolutely no real concrete links or evidence. The only links you rely on are words from the English language and their definitions. It is wrong to start with your conclusion, and then model your evidence around the conclusion....


If there actually was a source to the beginning of the universe, what evidence do u have that it can think or is sentient or even cares about you in particular? When I look at the universe and see the enormous amounts of exploding stars, collapsing galaxies.... black holes... I don't exactly think "hey this was all made for the purpose of me!"


Look at the huge volume of the universe and how we cannot survive in any of it! we are confined to this tiny blue planet that doesn't even have enough resources to support us so how can you possibly make sooooooo many assumptions that it was created by God???~~

reply to post by Artificial_Eyebrows

you start out your hypothesis with the assumption that God already exists, which is the hole in your raft of ideas.

Yea you can say that but he aint gunna listen.

Originally posted by Artificial_Eyebrows
reply to post by spy66

 

This doesn't make much sense to me because you start out your hypothesis with the assumption that God already exists, which is the hole in your raft of ideas. And in assuming that God exists, you then assume that he is infinite and everlasting (same mistake making presumptions to get to your next point). And then you jump from "everlasting/infinite" to "creator" then to "God" with absolutely no real concrete links or evidence. The only links you rely on are words from the English language and their definitions. It is wrong to start with your conclusion, and then model your evidence around the conclusion....


If there actually was a source to the beginning of the universe, what evidence do u have that it can think or is sentient or even cares about you in particular? When I look at the universe and see the enormous amounts of exploding stars, collapsing galaxies.... black holes... I don't exactly think "hey this was all made for the purpose of me!"


Look at the huge volume of the universe and how we cannot survive in any of it! we are confined to this tiny blue planet that doesn't even have enough resources to support us so how can you possibly make sooooooo many assumptions that it was created by God???~~

This is just a thought or a idea,that i put together based on logic and common sense. I have no fact but the meaning within the words.
So yes you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO right it is based on assumptions.

I also say so in my start post. It is based om my thoughts and ideas.

I started with just Nothing and went on from there. And i argued the logic and common sense behind my idea. If you try that, and you come up with a better way to create something out of nothing. I would probable say that it would be nothing but a assumption. What better way to answer a thing you have no clue about. Assumptions wow fits in everywhere.

If you did I would probably argue it to.

But this is just a assumtion. What else could it be.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


Ok thanks for the honest response. I just wanted to let you know that your way of coming to conclusions may not be the best...

Originally posted by Artificial_Eyebrows
reply to post by spy66

 

Ok thanks for the honest response. I just wanted to let you know that your way of coming to conclusions may not be the best...

Well that is a mater of a opinion. And that is fair. I can live with that.

It is what it is right or wrong.

If you knew i was wrong you wouldn't have made a assumtion on my assumtion. You would have told me the facts.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...

All the matter in the universe is so huge are minds can't even handle it.
The above link helps to expand our knowledge of the universe, in a small way.

The point is, the physical universe and all the matter in it didn't always exist.
That matter had to be created in some manner, only a being with unlimited energy E=MC2 could do this. That's God. No beginning, No End and unlimited energy that will never run out. God was all alone in the universe 999 Trillion years ago, and even before that. God created time when he created Jesus Christ, that is the only reference point we can start from.

Yet in the above link they say the universe is 14 billion years old. So to take a wild guess that could mean Jesus Christ is about 20 billion years old.

Colossians 1:14-16 (Amplified Bible)

14In Whom we have our redemption through His blood, [which means] the forgiveness of our sins.
15[Now] He is the exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible]; He is the Firstborn of all creation.
16For it was in Him that all things were created, in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, whether thrones, dominions, rulers, or authorities; all things were created and exist through Him [by His service, intervention] and in and for Him.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well that's why i did this to see if i could figure out if science could explain anything. Now all i have to do is to learn science lol. So far all they tell me is that all the super theories are assumptions and cant prove reality.

Neither can they explain how vacuum came to be,That produces matter out of nothing. They still argue where the different types of vacuum appear from. Because if they try one theory another complicates the other.

Science can only study whats inside the box. The rest is just assumptions based on super equations. Which they cant prove because we dont have the necessities needed to study them.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...

All the matter in the universe is so huge are minds can't even handle it.
The above link helps to expand our knowledge of the universe, in a small way.

The point is, the physical universe and all the matter in it didn't always exist.
That matter had to be created in some manner, only a being with unlimited energy E=MC2 could do this. That's God. No beginning, No End and unlimited energy that will never run out. God was all alone in the universe 999 Trillion years ago, and even before that. God created time when he created Jesus Christ, that is the only reference point we can start from.

Yet in the above link they say the universe is 14 billion years old. So to take a wild guess that could mean Jesus Christ is about 20 billion years old.

There are theories that the universe always existed, just as you have the theory that God always existed. And E=MC2 only explains how matter can be transformed into energy, not how energy can be made into matter or how God has infinite energy to begin with. I also think that you are making the same mistake as the OP in saying that God automatically equals = No beginning, No end, and unlimited energy. I think you are using the definitions of a word instead of evidence to jump from one point to the next.


But let's just say that you proved God created the universe. I think that it is wrong to jump from the word God directly to Jesus Christ without giving fair time to other Gods. There are other Gods out there and I think it would be better to take them into account as well if you really want to be scientific about your process instead of being bias.

Originally posted by Artificial_Eyebrows




There are theories that the universe always existed, just as you have the theory that God always existed.

And they all make assumptions.

And E=MC2 only explains how matter can be transformed into energy, not how energy can be made into matter or how God has infinite energy to begin with.

And there is theory that assumes that there must be a field or a kind of empty particle that is there that helps energy become matter(the standard model. This field is called the Higgs field and the particle is the Higgs Boson which is the only standard model particle we have yet to see, yet we assume it must be there to create fundamental particles of matter!). The LHC at CERN was designed to try and find this amongts other things, it kicks back into gear in June 09 after being damaged in September of this year. At least we can test this theory, but I doubt it will mean anything to theologists or creationists as it is only really a part of the overall system and it will undoubtable raise more questions in the same exponantial manner these new discoveries seem to do ie what creates the higgs boson, what laws tell it to create different fundamental aspects of the standad model quarks and leptons. Not to mention what implications can be learnt regarding a unified field theory.

I also think that you are making the same mistake as the OP in saying that God automatically equals = No beginning, No end, and unlimited energy. I think you are using the definitions of a word instead of evidence to jump from one point to the next.

I don't accept it is a mistake unless you can prove that it is. It is a reasoning. That GOD or the source must be infinite and eternal. It is how the process works for these kinds of discussions. If you can reason why a source would not be infinite and eternal in a pre-existing period before the Universe came into existence, and do it without automatically assuming that GOD=not infinite and not eternal, then we can dismiss this reasoning as a mistake. We have to try and make logical assumptions about what was before, this is exactly what astrophysicists and theoritians do about what the nature of the before was, and how we can test the truth of these assumptions by using what we have today, which are more assumptions that are current knowledge and logic are true tools for understandings of our universe and our existence. No matter what it is that lies behind the Big bang, it will remain a GOD of many different sorts by definition, purely because it lies out side of our ability to define it. And that is exactly the nature of a GOD or GODs is it not. Infinite and eternal, beyond measure and understanding, which is the OP's arguement.

There are other Gods out there and I think it would be better to take them into account as well if you really want to be scientific about your process instead of being bias.

I feel you may have a poor understanding of how other religious doctrine and dogma describe creation, perhaps you should investigate just how many are supported by the standard model. I hope that will answer the origins of any percieved bias you assume exists in relation to this matter.

The scientist dont even know what dimension the infinite universe is.

They dont really know if it is open,closed, flat or string. But they assume it's a flat circle. They cant agree on the curve theory for the universe. Because they dont agree on the time space and matter that did the expansion.

Man there are a lot of assumptions within science.

Maybe the Big Bang theory is just a assumption based on light and radio waves they made by studying other universes out side our own. Because they are all lot older then ours. They found that out by studying the light the other universes reflected.
By studying the light they knew that the other universes where moving away from each other and ours. Now that's one of the theory they use to confirm that there was a Big Bang. But scientists have problems with Big Bang picture when they try to whined the time back to a beginning. Because our universe is so much younger then the others. That they assume that they cant be from the same Big Bang.

Man there are a lot of assumptions within science.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66

i agree, which is why I have argued with those who have criticized your OP for doing the same.
We cannot avoid assuming certain aspects when trying to formulate ideas or theories about what nature of being, source or cause is behind our amazing existence.

You will find that quantum physics is now beginning to merge with spirituality in some circles via some Noetic movements. I think this is an amazing. And may offer new insights.

reply to post by atlasastro


I know and thank's for the good support and understanding

The physicist faces two temptations. The first is to imagine that physics is the only way to know things. We have seen the remarks of Hawking and Tipler that end up strongly leaving that impression. If we accept them in an absolute and literal way, then all we would have would be physics.
Art and poetry, philosophy and theology, literature and history, would all be reduced to wishful thinking. Even if we don’t go to this extreme, any philosophical understanding of cosmology would be ruled impossible.

The remarks from Hawking.

Remarkably, Hawking has recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking model nonrealistically. He confesses, "I’m a positivist… I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is." Still more extreme, "I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality." In assessing the worth of a theory, "All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

I just have another thing to add. Where would time,space and matter create Life. Like organic evolution and Micro Evolution. Because dirt in it self cant create organic life. Like grass or trees with out a seed.
I cant find those equations in the scientific super equations yet. I am still looking.

Where did the matter get it's H20 from?

Where and how did the gasses make oxygen to begin with. The Big Bang???? That dosent make sense.

Where did the bacteria to life come from?





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

There is an other problem to our Big Bang story and the creation of earth and the moon 4 or 5 billion years ago.

The Moon we all know is moving away from the earth every year. It is moving away with about 3,8cm a year. This was not the case for a 2008 years ago. Because the gravity and rotation was much stronger back then.

But it still means that before it used to be closer. And if you bring it in closer you start to have a problem with the life on earth. And not to mention the distance it would be from the surface.

To figure out the moons gravitation you have to bring in the invert square law. The force of attraction between to objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

For example if you take the moon in 1/3 of its dis tans, the force of attraction would be 9 times grater. And what a tide that would create 5 times a day.

Now this creates a problem even if you date earth as far back as 1 billion years. If you do the math on that you would figure out that the Moon would be scratching the surface of the earth. More like it would be a part of the earth. It wouldent even exist.

Maybe i am doing this all wrong or something is got to be wrong with our science books concerning beginning of time.

It makes more sense if the earth and the moon was somewhere around 6000 years old.

Then it would have been no more then max 15 or 16m closer to earth then it is now. And the earth would have had a much more normal conditions to sustain life.

When you do this you have to take account for the gravity and rotation of the earth that affect the attraction to the moon and vise versa.

But for the Moon not to have interacted with the earth at some point in time if you use the scientific explanation used to day. The earth must have rotated like a bullet a million years ago. If not they would have collided.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


OK you say time cant be infinite but i would like to stat that logically thinking time begins when something is there, like take for example time is going now because well we are here and we are keeping time so if you really think about it time can be infinite in the sense that if god has always been then time has always been to, because god had to live in a certain TIME therefor time has been there with god and god according to you guys has always been so time has to and if god will always be then so will time.... think about it.