Questions about the origin of the universe

[SixNein]

The vast majority of what is written in the bible is not supported by other sources. In fact, its even 'questionable' as to whether Jesus even existed. Many of the 'other sources' are no more than second hand accounts, at best. And the old testament is oral tradition, not historical fact. Some of it may be based on historical figures, but the bible is more comparable to something like Homer's Illiad than any modern standard of historical fact.

Its based on more facts and evidence than any god-belief. And yes it can be solved, one doesn't need proof to come to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. A reasonable person doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Accepting something based on scientific evidence (which you can test and use for accurate prediction) is much more reasonable than accepting something based on religious fantasy. Science is grounded in observation and probability. Its not perfect, but its the best foundation we have. And it gives us a much more consistent view of the universe than any religion has to date. God didn't give you a computer, science did.
Faith doesn't allow for new understanding, it demands we make the facts fit the belief, regardless of how many logical backflips are required.

Egyptian Pharaohs such as Ramsey has documented accounts of stories that are in the bible. Most historians consider the bible to be of significant historical importance so I don't know where you are going with this.

God is a concept that is beyond the human mind to grasp. So there is no evidence to collect, you will have to rely on faith either way.

 

[SixNein]

No, you can apply math that reflects the physical world to the physical world.
You have it backward.

1+1=3

Doesn't make sense when you are talking about ping pong balls.
It does make sense when you are talking about humans having sex.

Its the observation of the real world even that gives math its meaning.

Applied math, yup.

 

[JoeDawg]

Egyptian Pharaohs such as Ramsey has documented accounts of stories that are in the bible. Most historians consider the bible to be of significant historical importance so I don't know where you are going with this.

Historical importance and historical accuracy are not the same. There is plenty of stuff in the bilble that contradicts other sources too, not to mention the parts that contradict basic science.

God is a concept that is beyond the human mind to grasp.

Or, its a empty anthropomorphism, much like every other supernatural being.

So there is no evidence to collect, you will have to rely on faith either way.

I don't rely on faith, I rely on evidence. There is none for gods and quite a lot of evidence that shows the gods people believe in are creations of their imaginations.

Ah... but as with most religious discussions, this is going no where.
Hail Eris.

 

[SixNein]

Historical importance and historical accuracy are not the same. There is plenty of stuff in the bilble that contradicts other sources too, not to mention the parts that contradict basic science.

I don't think the bible was meant to be taken for a science book. I think you're trying to interpret its philosophy literally, and you are attempting to apply it scientifically. Most of the historical accounts have been vetted, and the rest is philosophy.

Or, its a empty anthropomorphism, much like every other supernatural being.

I don't rely on faith, I rely on evidence. There is none for gods and quite a lot of evidence that shows the gods people believe in are creations of their imaginations.

Ah... but as with most religious discussions, this is going no where.
Hail Eris.

A God could smack you in the face in person, and you still would not be able to prove that the being is a God. You have absolutely no evidence either way. In your mind, you think a God would act a certain way. Since a God hasn't acted in that manner, you assume there is no God.

If you do or do not believe in God, it doesn't matter. The entire point is that you're not more correct then a person who believes the opposite.

 

[quantumdude]

I believe that mathematics is a science. If you strip away mathematics from science, you have nothing left except a conversation worthy of a do drop in bar.

Your belief notwithstanding, mathematics is not a science because it has no empirical content. The truth or falsity of mathematical propositions is determined by deductive reasoning or not at all. The truth or falsity of scientific propositions is determined by experiment. The fact that mathematics is an essential tool for physics does not in any way reverse that fact. And no, if you strip mathematics away from science you do not have idle chatter. The experimental side of science would remain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory...ence_to_G.C3.B6del.27s_incompleteness_theorem

I suspected that's what you meant. Since I don't have access to the "small number of scientists" who hold this view, I'll ask you: What makes you think that the formal undecidability of certain mathematical propositions has any bearing on theoretical physics, given that physical propositions are decided empirically (not formally)?

 

[SixNein]

Your belief notwithstanding, mathematics is not a science because it has no empirical content. The truth or falsity of mathematical propositions is determined by deductive reasoning or not at all. The truth or falsity of scientific propositions is determined by experiment. The fact that mathematics is an essential tool for physics does not in any way reverse that fact. And no, if you strip mathematics away from science you do not have idle chatter. The experimental side of science would remain.



I suspected that's what you meant. Since I don't have access to the "small number of scientists" who hold this view, I'll ask you: What makes you think that the formal undecidability of certain mathematical propositions has any bearing on theoretical physics, given that physical propositions are decided empirically (not formally)?

I'll explain it to you this way:

You have constructed a theory out of millions of observations. This theory is now a mathematical description of cause and effects discovered through observation. The goal of your theory is to explain the effects of the cause. The problem is mathematics states that it will either be inconstant or incomplete. Meaning that your theory is going to be inconsistent or it will be incomplete. Eventually someone will make an observation that breaks your theory and it will have to be revised because it's not complete; however, that doesn't mean your theory wasn't useful.

Let me give you an example: Take stellar evolution theory, recently an observation was made of a star that exploded before using up its hydrogen. According to stellar evolution theory, this is not suppose to happen. So scientist are now facing a lot of open questions about what just happened. The end result will likely be a revised version of stellar evolution theory. In other words, we are discovering that we don't understand the process of stellar evolution as well as we thought.

You can translate this in a philosophical sense as we will always be able to learn something new. I would personally argue that Godel's theorem was, in a sense, a theory of everything that all of physics, mathematics, computer science, and philosophy obeys including the theorem obeying itself. Such an argument today would leave me alone on an island, but tomorrow may tell a different story.

The other problem with discovering the origin of the universe most definitely is our limited ability of observation. The age of the universe is more or less just a guess as well as any notion of size or shape or origin.

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

 

[JoeDawg]

If you do or do not believe in God, it doesn't matter. The entire point is that you're not more correct then a person who believes the opposite.

Actually yes I can be. Religions are full of stuff that contradicts historical fact, other religions, and our understanding of science. If you are using a computer you have to accept science at least tentatively. Nothing presently compels you to believe in Zeus, other than an old book or two. Science gives us the most powerful method for prediction ever conceived by human beings. Religion has been consistently wrong about all kinds of things.

The gods don't reside on Mount Olympus.
Thunder is not created by the sound of Thors hammer
The Sun does not revolve around the earth.
There are no crystal spheres holding up the planets.
The world is not 6 thousand years old.

Science HAS been shown to be 'more correct' than religion. The fact science doesn't have all the answers does not imply or logically lead to the idea that religion is correct about anything. Religion may be correct about somethings but its not inversely proportional to science. Even a guess can be right half the time and religion tends to fair worse statistically.

The fact we don't know how the universe is created (or even if it was) is not a good reason to believe the giant space turtle vomited the universe, after a night out on the town.
Your logic is faulty. If you wish to believe in the fantasies of religion, be my guest, but its not logical and its not comparable to science or even good philosophy, which is at least based on some form of logic.

 

[drankin]

Why are humans so illogical? Most of the worlds population has an illogical religious belief system. How did a species so illogical as the human species survive and dominate their environment? Hmmm. If humans were more logical, would we be better off?

 

[SixNein]

Actually yes I can be. Religions are full of stuff that contradicts historical fact, other religions, and our understanding of science. If you are using a computer you have to accept science at least tentatively. Nothing presently compels you to believe in Zeus, other than an old book or two. Science gives us the most powerful method for prediction ever conceived by human beings. Religion has been consistently wrong about all kinds of things.

The gods don't reside on Mount Olympus.
Thunder is not created by the sound of Thors hammer
The Sun does not revolve around the earth.
There are no crystal spheres holding up the planets.
The world is not 6 thousand years old.

Science HAS been shown to be 'more correct' than religion. The fact science doesn't have all the answers does not imply or logically lead to the idea that religion is correct about anything. Religion may be correct about somethings but its not inversely proportional to science. Even a guess can be right half the time and religion tends to fair worse statistically.

The fact we don't know how the universe is created (or even if it was) is not a good reason to believe the giant space turtle vomited the universe, after a night out on the town.
Your logic is faulty. If you wish to believe in the fantasies of religion, be my guest, but its not logical and its not comparable to science or even good philosophy, which is at least based on some form of logic.

If you want to open this up to every interpretation of every religion then let's open up all the ideas from science as well. Look at how many crack pot theories have been proposed, how many accepted theories shown wrong, and how many theories that has been revised. Look at how these theories have been interpreted, Hitlers notion of a evolution compliant Germany (blond hair, blue eyes, perfect race lol). Remember how science used "bleeding" to cure someone...!

Lets put this into a different context. If I told you that I believe there is more to the universe then what has been observed, that the universe is far older, much larger, and unlikely to have all originated from a big bang process... and you disagree... then are you more correct then I? Keep in mind that it is impossible for me to prove this correct. Current observations of the universe say 14 billions years old, spherical shape, about 93-94 billion light years in diameter, and originated in the big bang.

 

[JoeDawg]

If you want to open this up to every interpretation of every religion then let's open up all the ideas from science as well. Look at how many crack pot theories have been proposed, how many accepted theories shown wrong, and how many theories that has been revised.

Science is not just theory. Science involves things like experiments, falsification, verification etc... Religion generally involves scripture, opinion, and interpretations thereof.

Revising theories is the strength of science. Sometimes scientists throw out theories when they are shown to be wrong or not accurate enough. Religion does no such thing, religion has its dogma and tries to fit the evidence to the 'revealed' truth.

Lets put this into a different context. If I told you that I believe there is more to the universe then what has been observed, that the universe is far older, much larger, and unlikely to have all originated from a big bang process... and you disagree... then are you more correct then I? Keep in mind that it is impossible for me to prove this correct. Current observations of the universe say 14 billions years old, spherical shape, about 93-94 billion light years in diameter, and originated in the big bang.

Your claim that the universe is 'bigger', may be correct, but it is mere opinion, so it doesn't have much value. Observations about the universe indicate that it is explanding, and based on a whole bunch of evidence, and our ability to make testable predictions about the universe based on 'the big bang' theory, this claim has more weight.

Implying that all claims have equal value simply because we don't have perfect knowledge of everything ignores what we actually do know and can observe. The 'theory' might be wrong, the observation might be misinterpreted, but religion is invariably just the opinion of one person, repeated many times. Science demands independent, repeatable, observation, not just opinion. Science is more rigourous, it has a higher standard.

Religious myths may be informative about human nature, but they invariably contradict in major ways with the natural world. So with regards to the natural world, science IS more correct.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

Again, OP’s questions shifted to some other interesting discussion, not going astray, but tackling parallel issues… origins and beyond, infinity, time and space and of course, ourselves in the very middle, coping with it all, through our human nature.

First off, seems to me quite obvious (from an external point of view) that no God, nor Godlike being is necessary to explain anything that has been conceived of since the very first Earth creature’s brain capable of elaborating an idea or thought came to be.

Since then, every single idea or thought accumulated about the nature of our world, Universe and our place in it, up to the newest and ever next one, has been of a human nature, and as such the very concept of God is also man made.

However, I think it can be given equal ‘emergence’ rights as any other idea, thought or concept that ever came forth, leaving the door opened for validation.

Now, having said that, back to the OP ;

1) I believe that Time, like so much else, became accessible as soon as Mathematics were grasped by the first mind that could do so.

2) If Mathematics can unite space and time into Spacetime, then the unification process could generate an energy that, according to some already thought-about interaction, can be equated to mass. The infinity of it all would depend on math’s own ability to be infinite.

3) Dunno, from a human perspective, it depends on the equation’s solutions.

4) According to 1), then there wouldn’t be any breakdown, since Time would have originated after the BB, and its causality, or rather, the potentiality of its causality, could be traced to the first mind that could perform an addition.


Regards,

VE


P.S. : to JoeDawg … 1 + 1 ALWAYS = 3

When a baby is born out of the fusion of its loving parents, they become 4.

 

[Kronos5253]

WELLLLLLLL black holes arent portals they are a massive amount of gravity that actually makes space and time look like nothing. it pulls light in. why does a black hole look like a black hole?? because light can't escape it.

I don't see that as being necessarly true. It's not that light can't escape it, it's that it doesn't escape it. My basis for that is this:

BH's obviously has spin from when the mass of the star it originated from collapsed in on itself to form this massively dense object. At the north and south poles of a black hole, there are emissions of electrons traveling nearly the speed of light. Now, considering electrons have mass and therefore cannot travel the speed of light, the assumption that light cannot escape a BH is null and void, if something with mass that only almost travels as fast, can escape it.

 

[buffordboy23]

I don't see that as being necessarly true. It's not that light can't escape it, it's that it doesn't escape it. My basis for that is this:

BH's obviously has spin from when the mass of the star it originated from collapsed in on itself to form this massively dense object. At the north and south poles of a black hole, there are emissions of electrons traveling nearly the speed of light. Now, considering electrons have mass and therefore cannot travel the speed of light, the assumption that light cannot escape a BH is null and void, if something with mass that only almost travels as fast, can escape it.

The event horizon of a black hole is the point of no return. Once anything crosses that boundary, the escape velocity is larger than the speed of light, c. Therefore, nothing can escape.

What you are referring to are gas jets. There are intense magnetic fields at the poles. The BH brings stuff toward it due to its intense gravity and it flings ionized gas or plasma back out into space at the poles. Nothing crosses the event horizon here.

 

[Kronos5253]

The event horizon of a black hole is the point of no return. Once anything crosses that boundary, the escape velocity is larger than the speed of light, c. Therefore, nothing can escape.

What you are referring to are gas jets. There are intense magnetic fields at the poles. The BH brings stuff toward it due to its intense gravity and it flings ionized gas or plasma back out into space at the poles. Nothing crosses the event horizon here.

I can understand that, but even if that's the case, then what causes a BH to lose mass?

I find it illogical to think that nothing crosses the event horizon of a BH. If it can create an escape velocity larger than the speed of light, then shouldn't it be able to push an object (lets say, a photon since they have no mass) past the accepted speed of light? c is not a constant. It's used in equations as a constant, but the speed of light is variable, due to it's interaction with gravity and matter.

 

[Kronos5253]

How do you know that I exist? Just about everything that you "know" is based upon faith.

It is mathematically proven (two proofs as a matter of fact) that some things cannot be explain logically. The Continuum hypothesis put forth by Georg Cantor, which deals with infinity, has had strong mathematical evidence that it's impossible to solve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

If mathematics cannot answer these questions, then it's siblings in science doesn't stand a chance.

It's only impossible to solve using the methods that have already been used. How do you know it cannot be solved if you haven't gone through every possibility?

That's like saying a combination lock with four thousand turn dials is impossible to open if you don't already know the combination.

 

[Kronos5253]

Egyptian Pharaohs such as Ramsey has documented accounts of stories that are in the bible. Most historians consider the bible to be of significant historical importance so I don't know where you are going with this.

Yes, and the New Testament's story of Jesus is almost an exact copy to that of the Egyptian Horus.

Ironically, you can make exact correlations between those stories and the movement of the Sun.

 

[buffordboy23]

I can understand that, but even if that's the case, then what causes a BH to lose mass?

Hawking radiation. It's a theory that has yet to proven by data.

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

I find it illogical to think that nothing crosses the event horizon of a BH. If it can create an escape velocity larger than the speed of light, then shouldn't it be able to push an object (lets say, a photon since they have no mass) past the accepted speed of light? c is not a constant. It's used in equations as a constant, but the speed of light is variable, due to it's interaction with gravity and matter.

Why would a BH push a photon? BHs pull because of their immense mass and gravity. The speed (which does not depend on displacement) of a photon is always "c" in the vacuum, and in other mediums it is slower. I guess you can say that the velocity (which depends on the overall displacement) of a photon is variable, but the velocity would still never be greater than "c" based on our current understanding of physics.

 

[Kronos5253]

Hawking radiation. It's a theory that has yet to proven by data.

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




Why would a BH push a photon? BHs pull because of their immense mass and gravity. The speed (which does not depend on displacement) of a photon is always "c" in the vacuum, and in other mediums it is slower. I guess you can say that the velocity (which depends on the overall displacement) of a photon is variable, but the velocity would still never be greater than "c" based on our current understanding of physics.

Hawking radiation is a viable theory, but it's still only on paper. So why wait for that to be proven wrong/right to try to come up with other reasons? Even so it's still only theoretical that nothing can escape the event horizon of a BH, that should depend on the density.

That was my mistake for stating speed instead of velocity, but I understand that point. Thanks :)

 

[buffordboy23]

Hawking radiation is a viable theory, but it's still only on paper. So why wait for that to be proven wrong/right to try to come up with other reasons?

Your right. Some scientists probably explore this same question. The problem is that observations help guide theory and there are no current observations which show distinctly that BHs do lose mass.

EDIT: When the Large Hadron Collider is at full operation, it is suggested that micro-blackholes may be created. If Hawking's theory is correct, then they should evaporate very quickly. I am unsure of the specifics regarding whether or not the particle detectors could deduce the formation of micro-BH during a collision event.

 

[Kronos5253]

Your right. Some scientists probably explore this same question. The problem is that observations help guide theory and there are no current observations which show distinctly that BHs do lose mass.

EDIT: When the Large Hadron Collider is at full operation, it is suggested that micro-blackholes may be created. If Hawking's theory is correct, then they should evaporate very quickly. I am unsure of the specifics regarding whether or not the particle detectors could deduce the formation of micro-BH during a collision event.

True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.

I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.

If just doing that could create micro-BH, then any star that collapses would inevitibly turn into a black hole, and we already know that isn't true. The star has to be large enough and have enough mass to produce enough density to create a BH.

I just think it's a ridiculous notion lol But that's just an opinion :)

 

[Kronos5253]

True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.

I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.

If just doing that could create micro-BH, then any star that collapses would inevitibly turn into a black hole, and we already know that isn't true. The star has to be large enough and have enough mass to produce enough density to create a BH.

I just think it's a ridiculous notion lol But that's just an opinion :)

No takers or arguments to this?

I make a valid point correct?

 

[buffordboy23]

True, but that's most likely because you'd have to observe a black hole for an extremely long period of time before you'd notice any fluctuations in mass or density.

Exactly, and this timescale is a great many magnitudes larger than that of a human life span. There would have to some monster of a physical mechanism yet to be discovered that causes a rapid mass-loss rate that is observable.

I know about the micro-BH from the LHC.. I think it's an absolutely ridiculous hypothesis though. The immense amount of density and the resulting rapid rise in gravitational pull from a collapsing star is what causes a BH in the first place (theoretically speaking of course), so how could a micro-BH even exist? A micro-BH might as well just be called a micro-explosion, because the density and amount of matter produced from 2 electrons colliding is nowhere near enough to create a BH. It would be similar to a smaller star collapsing.

Actually, the LHC will collide protons, which are comprised of quarks. In simple terms, we can say that the apparent mass of some object (in this case a proton) increases as the object approaches the speed of light:

$$m_{apparent}= \frac{m_{rest}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$$

Go ahead and put in something like v = .99999999 c to see what the apparent mass is. So you will have two protons with this apparent mass and now you should see that it is possible to have a large density in a small area.

 

[Kronos5253]

Exactly, and this timescale is a great many magnitudes larger than that of a human life span. There would have to some monster of a physical mechanism yet to be discovered that causes a rapid mass-loss rate that is observable.



Actually, the LHC will collide protons, which are comprised of quarks. In simple terms, we can say that the apparent mass of some object (in this case a proton) increases as the object approaches the speed of light:

$$m_{apparent}= \frac{m_{rest}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$$

Go ahead and put in something like v = .99999999 c to see what the apparent mass is. So you will have two protons with this apparent mass and now you should see that it is possible to have a large density in a small area.

While that forumla theory is facinating, looking at the result I got from the equation, it's still not near enough to form a black hole. The mass I got wasn't half that of our Sun, and our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf, not a black hole, because it doesn't have enough mass.

That concept (and equation) sheds new light on the subject for me though, even if I still don't find it to be plausible.

But thank you :) I appreciate it.

 

[buffordboy23]

While that forumla theory is facinating, looking at the result I got from the equation, it's still not near enough to form a black hole. The mass I got wasn't half that of our Sun, and our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf, not a black hole, because it doesn't have enough mass.

It's not the total mass that is important here. It's the density. Calculate the densities and compare.

 

[Kronos5253]

It's not the total mass that is important here. It's the density. Calculate the densities and compare.

Gotcha.

:resigns: