About the Universe

[The Don Kiluminati]

I am just wondering what people think on this regarding the existence of the Universe.

Lets take two things which are argueably true;

1. In reality, there is no such thing as "infinite". Everything has a limit.
2. Something cannot come out of nothing. It's impossible.

When you take those two things, it poses 2 questions about our universe;

1. What created the big bang if; something can't come from nothing.
2. If there is no such thing as infinite, then did our Universe have a beginning and will it have an end? (meaning will it stop expanding at some point and retract)

I know this can bring the whole God theory up etc. But I was just wondering what is the rationale theory to this; especially from Athiests.

 

[SubZeroTwo]

99.99% of people don't care about the universe or have no idea how to explore it. To be honest, it's crazy how these scientists discover things, I'm very interested in the universe because of all the insane science stories that come along with it.

But back to my original point, it's crazy how they discover things, like if you get a shimmer of light in the telescope, they can determine how far away it is, and how big it is, and how old the area is, it's insane.

But it is nice to hear all the stories about different planets as in, there could be planets that are covered in diamonds and other gems (from extreme volcanic activity) and other planets that are like 100x the size of earth that might contain life, imagine that huge planet.

To your original questions, 1) We don't know what the big bang really is, it's all just guesses to be honest, they are constantly changing their ideas around which is the good thing about science, people can admit when they're wrong. 2) We don't know, it's an interesting proposition, we don't really know what happens to suns after they die out, they turn back into black holes, and most recently, there have been articles on how black holes CREATE life instead of destroying it, so they themselves are a renewable resource? It's quite interesting overall lol.

 

[Relevance]

1. In reality, there is no such thing as "infinite". Everything has a limit.

Entertain me and prove it. Of course, some people maintain this argument and contradict themselves by saying "God" is infinite.

1. What created the big bang if; something can't come from nothing.

Agreed. One shouldn't pretend to know. After all, big bang theory only describes the moments after the universe (as we know it) was created.

2. If there is no such thing as infinite, then did our Universe have a beginning and will it have an end? (meaning will it stop expanding at some point and retract)

Modern physicists do no believe gravity to be strong enough to pull our universe back together. They believe that it will simply burn out as things begin to spread out.

I know this can bring the whole God theory up etc.

God isn't a valid theory. It's a pathetic, unfalsifiable hypothesis that makes no predictions and answers no questions.

especially from Athiests.

The dichotomy you are creating here isn't between Atheists and theists. You are merely demonstrating a basic lack of logic and attempting a ridiculous argument from ignorance.

 

I am just wondering what people think on this regarding the existence of the Universe.

Lets take two things which are argueably true;

1. In reality, there is no such thing as "infinite". Everything has a limit.
2. Something cannot come out of nothing. It's impossible.

I agree with both premises.

When you take those two things, it poses 2 questions about our universe;

1. What created the big bang if; something can't come from nothing.
2. If there is no such thing as infinite, then did our Universe have a beginning and will it have an end? (meaning will it stop expanding at some point and retract)

You've mixed abstraction with concrete and come up with a contradiction.

Let's unravel it:

Time is not a thing in reality. Time is an abstraction based on the observation and comparison of rates of change in matter. To say that time is infinite has nothing to do with the finite nature of the universe.

A Cartesian plane too, for example, is infinite, but it is an abstraction designed to be that way.

Second part of your question:
Is there any reason to expect the universe had a beginning or will have an end?

Given that time is only an abstraction the answer is: no. And assuming that the laws of conservation of matter and energy hold, there is every reason to expect that, on the contrary, it cannot have a beginning nor end.

I know this can bring the whole God theory up etc. But I was just wondering what is the rationale theory to this; especially from Athiests.

Tip: don't bring up big bang cosmology unless you have significant evidence to back it.

 

[Relevance]

Time is not a thing in reality. Time is an abstraction based on the observation and comparison of rates of change in matter. To say that time is infinite has nothing to do with the finite nature of the universe.

I disagree with this explanation. While in practical use, time is an abstract observation, it is thought to actually be unified with space, in what in modern science is known as the fabric of "space-time". Hence, unless you believe objects of the third dimension to be abstractions, time is not merely a "concept" of infinite existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Tip: don't bring up big bang cosmology unless you have significant evidence to back it.

Red-shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Objects are moving away from each other. The obvious counterpoint is that they were once closer together.

Background residue from Big Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Cohesive outlined argument for Big Bang
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

[Fire Monkey]

The hubble telescope can look very far back into our universe.. and because it's ever expanding, this means you can get a look back at how it was billions of years ago..

This has actually been done to show how the big bang happened, and how the universe achieved perfect order out of chaos. It can be compared to how you would inflate a balloon. This is the way in which the gas released from the big bang expanded outwards into space, it then cooled at different rates to form the elements we see all around us.

You guys are seriously slacking with your cosmology.. like 2 years behind the times.

 

I disagree with this explanation. While in practical use, time is an abstract observation, it is thought to actually be unified with space, in what in modern science is known as the fabric of "space-time". Hence, unless you believe objects of the third dimension to be abstractions, time is not merely a "concept" of infinite existence.

Space-time is an abstraction useful for explaining some very strange phenomena in the world. It takes two existing abstractions: Cartesian space, and Time and combines them into a third abstraction.

Again you are mixing concretes and abstractions which leads you into a contradiction. Space-time is not a thing, but rather a way of explaining how things behave.

Red-shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Objects are moving away from each other. The obvious counterpoint is that they were once closer together. Background residue from Big Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

Cohesive outlined argument for Big Bang
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

We've had the big bang debate before.

To avoid having it again, I'll just send you a video which does a good job explaining the problems:

http://fora.tv/2009/05/23/Marcus_Chown_in_Conversation_with_Fred_Watson

 

[Relevance]

Space-time is not a thing, but rather a way of explaining how things behave.

I suppose, if you put it that way.

http://fora.tv/2009/05/23/Marcus_Chown_in_Conversation_with_Fred_Watson

"We are pretty certain that we started in a dense hot fireball." -A quote from the man himself.

Most of his points are agreeable. Dark energy, Dark matter, and FTL inflation are simply "fill in the blanks" for what we don't know. He mentioned that the universe "wasn't" old enough to congeal though I'm not sure what kind of standards he's using. We know that galaxies formed within a few billion years.

This is a bit besides the point - the standard big bang model is the best theory we have. It's far from perfect, as are most of the large theories out today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics).

There are plenty of them. Doesn't mean we just discard everything. Just means we should explore alternatives as well.

 

This is a bit besides the point - the standard big bang model is the best theory we have.

Not an argument. Whether or not you think X is the best explanation available has no bearing on the validity of X as a theory.

Further, there are much more competent cosmological theories around. You are just ignorant of them. (Search youtube for Electric Universe theory.)

 

[SubZeroTwo]

Not an argument. And it's not even true. There are much more advanced cosmological theories. You are just ignorant of them.

We're in the Matrix.

'Nuff said.

 

[Relevance]

Not an argument. Whether or not you think X is the best explanation available has no bearing on the validity of X as a theory.

I listed quite a bit of evidence in the previous post. For the purposes of online debating, we are looking for credibility by citing different, hopefully better-informed, perspectives. Absolute validity is hard to determine as we aren't primary sources of evidence.

Further, there are much more competent cosmological theories around. You are just ignorant of them. (Search youtube for Electric Universe theory.)

Electric universe has more to do with regards as an alternative to the theory of relativity, not the Big Bang. The problem with the Electric Universe theory, among other cosmological theories, is that they fail to make the same, stunningly accurate predictions seen by general relativity (most notably however, general relativity fails at the quantum scale).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
http://ezinearticles.com/?Verified-Predictions-of-General-Relativity&id=450237

The Electric Universe theory is really just a guess at explaining several phenomenon and lacks a mathematical basis. And because of this shortfall, it also fails to make the useful predictions that scientists value. This does not mean it shouldn't be researched - I'm merely asserting a practical explanation of why it isn't seen much in mainstream science.

 

I listed quite a bit of evidence in the previous post. For the purposes of online debating, we are looking for credibility by citing different, hopefully better-informed, perspectives. Absolute validity is hard to determine as we aren't primary sources of evidence.

Sorry, but not interested in having this debate again. It's been had multiple times. If you want my views then dig up the old threads.

Summary: big bang cosmology rests on two pieces of non-conclusive evidence (redshift, microwave background) and hypothesizes a universe which is inconsistent with the one we live in.

Unless you have a third piece of evidence you wanted to enter I don't think this will go anywhere.

 

[blazinfasstt]

personally, i believe in the oscillating big bang theiry