seeder Posted October 14, 2016 #1 Share Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) Quote Before Big Bang: Scientists discover what existed BEFORE the beginning of the universe IT has been the big question facing humanity since mankind crawled from the primordial ooze – where did the universe come from? Non-scientific versions of the answer have invoked many gods and have been the basis of all religions and most philosophy since the beginning of recorded time. Now a team of mathematicians from Canada and Egypt have used cutting edge scientific theory and a mind-boggling set of equations to work out what preceded the universe in which we live. In (very) simple terms they applied the theories of the very small – the world of quantum mechanics – to the whole universe - explained by general theory of relativity, and discovered the universe basically goes though four different phases. More importantly they discovered what came before this universe was.. another universe or more accurately another ‘cosmological phase’. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/720860/beginning-of-universe-scientists-discover-what-existed-before Edited October 14, 2016 by seeder 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 14, 2016 #2 Share Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) now they have to prove it. but, the same question we get about god. what came before the first universe? shoes on the other foot now. i have been wondering if we are just living in a blackhole. Edited October 14, 2016 by danielost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted October 14, 2016 #3 Share Posted October 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, danielost said: now they have to prove it. but, the same question we get about god. what came before the first universe? shoes on the other foot now. It seems like a silly thing to argue about but argue, they do. We all get about 70 years to consider the answers, and what we believe. The problem with the science worshippers is they refuse any explanation that doesn't leave man firmly in the driver's seat. If they are correct then the odds aren't good for this species. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitat Posted October 14, 2016 #4 Share Posted October 14, 2016 You are living in a capital letter-free universe, Ddaniel. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted October 14, 2016 #5 Share Posted October 14, 2016 1 hour ago, danielost said: now they have to prove it. but, the same question we get about god. what came before the first universe? shoes on the other foot now. i have been wondering if we are just living in a blackhole. What came before the first universe? In the scenario of the link, there never was a first universe, the universe cycles and has always cycled. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed and the total energy of the universe is zero, as the force of gravity is measured as a negative force, the other three forces are measured as positive forces. Taken together, the universe is a free lunch, like a rubber ball that keeps bouncing, not loosing energy to its external environment. For the universe, there is no external environment. If we walked up to this kind of bouncing ball and asked about its first bounce, by its very nature there could be no first bounce, it always has been bouncing. This also answers the question of where did the ball come from. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted October 14, 2016 #6 Share Posted October 14, 2016 It was God, approaching the Big Balloon with the Big Pin. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 14, 2016 #7 Share Posted October 14, 2016 5 hours ago, and then said: It seems like a silly thing to argue about but argue, they do. We all get about 70 years to consider the answers, and what we believe. The problem with the science worshippers is they refuse any explanation that doesn't leave man firmly in the driver's seat. If they are correct then the odds aren't good for this species. Man is just an observer. He is driving nothing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 14, 2016 #8 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Quite an interesting look at a cyclical Universe, that is interesting and it make sense, everything evolves, and this theory would suggest the Universe does too, which really makes perfect sense when we look around ourselves and out into space. Rushed for time, I must look into this more, very interesting!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingitsune Posted October 14, 2016 #9 Share Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) Oh! that was my hunch for years, that the universe was concentrating, exploding, expending, stabilizing, then concentrating again. I'm glad people with more maths abilities than me have the same idea and actually try to prove it. Edited October 14, 2016 by Gingitsune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Area Posted October 14, 2016 #10 Share Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) So then by its very nature, the universe is a very very complex perpetual motion machine. Edited October 14, 2016 by Grey Area 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Nomenon Posted October 14, 2016 #11 Share Posted October 14, 2016 clearly it was the Big Foreplay 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitat Posted October 14, 2016 #12 Share Posted October 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Grey Area said: So then by its very nature, the universe is a very very complex perpetual motion machine. Very complex compared to what ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Area Posted October 14, 2016 #13 Share Posted October 14, 2016 43 minutes ago, Habitat said: Very complex compared to what ? Why is a comparison needed to illustrate that the universe is complex? We have several thousand years of recorded science and philosophy on its structure and still do not understand it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitat Posted October 14, 2016 #14 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Obviously we can talk about the relative complexity of phenomena within the universe, and in toto the universe has to be the most complex, if only by addition, but whether we can say the universe is complex, seems questionable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 14, 2016 #15 Share Posted October 14, 2016 7 hours ago, StarMountainKid said: What came before the first universe? In the scenario of the link, there never was a first universe, the universe cycles and has always cycled. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed and the total energy of the universe is zero, as the force of gravity is measured as a negative force, the other three forces are measured as positive forces. Taken together, the universe is a free lunch, like a rubber ball that keeps bouncing, not loosing energy to its external environment. For the universe, there is no external environment. If we walked up to this kind of bouncing ball and asked about its first bounce, by its very nature there could be no first bounce, it always has been bouncing. This also answers the question of where did the ball come from. then i guess you answered about god too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted October 14, 2016 #16 Share Posted October 14, 2016 6 hours ago, danielost said: then i guess you answered about god too. A God/Creator is not needed in this scenario. I don't quite understand the maximum energy statement in the link for the universe to stop expanding. And what about entropy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted October 14, 2016 #17 Share Posted October 14, 2016 The bounce is the god .. the god is the bounce ... what is bouncing is not the permanent or the eternal ... the eternity is the bounce ... and in that bounce is the wobble the jiggle and a wiggle once in a while ~ hopefully a giggle too ... ~ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted October 14, 2016 #18 Share Posted October 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, third_eye said: The bounce is the god .. the god is the bounce ... what is bouncing is not the permanent or the eternal ... the eternity is the bounce ... and in that bounce is the wobble the jiggle and a wiggle once in a while ~ hopefully a giggle too ... The bounce is the god if you want to look at it in this way. For me, practically speaking, adding god to the bounce is inserting something extra, some concept. There is just the bounce itself. There's a saying, "Can you tell the dancer from the dance?" We don't need music (god) to dance, we just dance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted October 14, 2016 #19 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Just now, StarMountainKid said: The bounce is the god if you want to look at it in this way. For me, practically speaking, adding god to the bounce is inserting something extra, some concept. There is just the bounce itself. There's a saying, "Can you tell the dancer from the dance?" We don't need music (god) to dance, we just dance. Actually ... if its from the same reference ... The Dancing Wu Li masters ... The Dance is the god ... the dancer and the dance becomes one ... one with god Quote The Wu Li Master dances with his student. The Wu Li Master does not teach, but the student learns. The Wu Li Master always begins at the center, the heart of the matter... wiki link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted October 14, 2016 #20 Share Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) I read the book many years ago. "Patterns of organic energy." 'Organic', I suppose, means 'occurring naturally'. I think this is my point. Adding some kinds of spirituality or philosophy to nature can bring us to greater depths of appreciation, but may also add aspects to nature that nature does not contain. That's why I say in a practical sense it may be incorrect or superfluous to add 'extras' to natural phenomena. I personally like the idea that nature is just nature, and when we follow the natural way of things we live in harmony with 'organic patterns' of the natural world. I don't like to add to this because there is no evidence of of any structures beyond these naturally occurring organic patterns. It's just my way of thinking. Edited October 14, 2016 by StarMountainKid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted October 14, 2016 #21 Share Posted October 14, 2016 Just now, StarMountainKid said: I read the book many years ago. "Patterns of organic energy." 'Organic', I suppose, means 'occurring naturally'. I think this is my point. Adding some kinds of spirituality or philosophy to nature can bring us to greater depths of appreciation, but may also add aspects to nature that nature does not contain. That's why I say in a practical sense it may be incorrect or superfluous to add 'extras' to natural phenomena. I personally like the idea that nature is just nature, and when we follow the natural way of things we live in harmony with 'organic patterns' of the natural world. I don't like to add to this because there is no evidence of of any structures beyond these naturally occurring organic patterns. Ahhh I get your point now ... from my background the definition of 'god' doesn't carry that unassailable Abrahamic overtones or undertones ... To me Nature is as good as god ... maybe I should say might as well be god ... or should I say is indistinguishable from god ... ~ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted October 14, 2016 #22 Share Posted October 14, 2016 1 minute ago, third_eye said: Ahhh I get your point now ... from my background the definition of 'god' doesn't carry that unassailable Abrahamic overtones or undertones ... To me Nature is as good as god ... maybe I should say might as well be god ... or should I say is indistinguishable from god ... Yes, I understood what you meant by god. I wish more of us would come to the same understanding. It would safe a lot of trouble we cause each other! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka CAT Posted October 14, 2016 #23 Share Posted October 14, 2016 (edited) When talking about the physical universal, one is discussing that which can be observed, measured, proven ...&c. Still, because of the limitations of science, I'll believe consciousness preceded matter. So, in that sense, I'll say the chicken came before the egg and whoever wants to argue the opposite can do so indefinitely without proof. Edited October 14, 2016 by aka CAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Area Posted October 14, 2016 #24 Share Posted October 14, 2016 9 hours ago, Habitat said: Obviously we can talk about the relative complexity of phenomena within the universe, and in toto the universe has to be the most complex, if only by addition, but whether we can say the universe is complex, seems questionable to me. Well I guess that all depends on your point of view then. One could say a computer is really simple, motherboard, memory, hard drive, PSU, CPU, graphics card, Monitor, keyboard, mouse, case. Put it all together and you have a computer that works, simple. What we are not discussing is the construction of each component, the countless transistors, switches, circuitry. Not to mention the software. the engineers that design and assemble those parts are to computers what our astro physicists and mathematicians are to the universe. They want to work out what makes it go, and simply understanding what happens doesn't explain the why. From the quanta right up to the the universe as a whole, it's all part of the same system. just my view 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted October 14, 2016 #25 Share Posted October 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, aka CAT said: When talking about the physical universal, one is discussing that which can be observed, measured, proven ...&c. Still, because of the limitations of science, I'll always believe consciousness preceded matter. So, in that sense, I'll say the chicken came before the egg and whoever wants to argue the opposite can do so indefinitely without proof. A fundamental particle is something that cannot be reduced or divided into smaller parts. A quark, for instance (ignoring string theory). We cannot define what a quark is, we can only define its behavior. Is a quark something that behaves or is it only behavior? Are the natural laws that govern its behavior the true fundamentals? And what is the essence of these laws that govern? Again, when we try to investigate space-time at scales smaller than the Planck scale, our scientific methods break down and do not apply to whatever exists beyond this scale. So, I would agree that science has its limitations in investigating physical existence. There may be realms of physicality beyond the Plank scale that we can never investigate and understand, and we may never be able to determine the nature of the fundamental laws that order the construction of the physical universe. What exists at these greater depths of physicality who can say? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now