Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: ***From where is the origin of universe and big bang ***

  1. #1 ***From where is the origin of universe and big bang *** 
    Forum Freshman varunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    india
    Posts
    5
    What is Big Bang ?

    The Big Bang was an explosion of all the matter in the universe about 15,000,000,000 years ago, which was squashed into a tiny area at more than 10,000,000 0C. The matter exploded so quickly that within the hundredth of a second, the universe was as big as the Sun ! It carried on growing.

    The first few seconds

    Before the Big Bang, there was nothing that we would recognize as physical material, not even atoms. In the first ten-thousandth of a second of this explosion, unimaginably high temperature and density helped to create some of the first building blocks from which atoms are formed. These pieces of matter are known today as quarks and mesons.

    As the Big Bang hurled this primitive material outwards in all directions, the temperature and the density began to fall. The building blocks began to stick together to form the sub-atomic particles - protons and neutrons that are at the core of atoms. Only ten seconds had passed. The primal material continued to fly outwards on the wings of the explosion.

    After the Big Bang

    After the Big Bang, with temperatures of at least 10,000,000 0C, nuclear reactions started to create the basic structures of the gases hydrogen and helium. Over the next million years, the radiated energy of light and head stemmed from the original explosion. The long process of the formation of the first stars began.

    At first, the new atoms joined up into a thin cloud of hot gas. The radiation that kept the atoms moving eventually weakened as millions of years passed. Atoms began to cluster together. Eventually, what had been an evenly distributed gas cloud became a large number of huge, separate clumps of gas. The force of gravity is exerted by all objects in the universe. It played a major part, first in the grouping of the gas globules that would become clusters of galaxies, and eventually in the formation of the stars within the galaxies.

    <A href=http://www.doortouniverse.4t.com>Doortouniverse.4t.com</a>


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Well we always had space, otherwise we would have had no place to put all this matter. Many think of space as being nothing, I think of it as the vessel void of matter.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore buffstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow...
    Posts
    157
    So a question. Has the Big Bang, or any theory for the origins of the universe or life, been sciebtifically proven? Or are they still just unproven theories?
    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. -Robert Heinlein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by buffstuff
    So a question. Has the Big Bang, or any theory for the origins of the universe or life, been sciebtifically proven? Or are they still just unproven theories?
    When is a theory proven? Is there some proof supporting the theory? Yes. Look at evolution. Though there is plenty of evidence supporting the theory, one can still say that the evidence was manifested by God, and that He made it appear as if evolution really happened to see how smart we'd become.

    No theory or fact can truly be prove. Is it likely that evolution is correct? Yes. Is it likely that the Big Bang theory is correct? Yes, but there are still unanswered questions..

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Is it likely that the Big Bang theory is correct? Yes, but there are still unanswered questions..
    I would not say that it is likely that the Big Bang is correct, there are too many unanswered questions it leaves. These questions lead me to believe in a more cyclic theory of the universe and I think it would be more accurate to call the Big Bang theory incomplete. But then again, that is why it is theory.
    - sploit -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by sploit
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    Is it likely that the Big Bang theory is correct? Yes, but there are still unanswered questions..
    I would not say that it is likely that the Big Bang is correct, there are too many unanswered questions it leaves. These questions lead me to believe in a more cyclic theory of the universe and I think it would be more accurate to call the Big Bang theory incomplete. But then again, that is why it is theory.
    The problem with theories is that much like math you can apply a theory to just about anything and somehow make it all sound reasonable. I'm not saying the big bang has no basis, I'm sure somehow it does. The question still remains about true origins more then anything. I for one figure that if there is in fact a God that we may have not been the master plan, more of a side effect. Some aliens later stopped by to inform us of some of the details about the origins of the universe but instead found it would be more interesting to mess with us for a few thousand years. Either that or they crashed on the way home and never got around to telling us it was all a joke.

    Like my theory
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who likes hard drugs.
    - sploit -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore buffstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow...
    Posts
    157
    So what are some of those unanswered questions, and what could their possible answers be?
    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. -Robert Heinlein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    What happened before the big bang (what caused it)?
    Without changing the Big Bang theory any, my only conclusion would be god. Alas, I don't believe in god so nix that one.

    Where did the mechanism's for making large structures come from (basically how did the laws of physics come to be)?
    Again, you would need a new theory to answer this question. There are cyclic theories, multiverse theories, the ekpyrotic theory, etc etc etc. These would all answer this question.
    - sploit -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by buffstuff
    So a question. Has the Big Bang, or any theory for the origins of the universe or life, been sciebtifically proven? Or are they still just unproven theories?
    I must point out that a theory is not just something unproven that people make up out of thin air - after all, science is not religion or anything. A theory is, put simply a well-supported hypothesis.

    Big Bang says that sometime around 13.7 billion years ago (by current estimates) the universe began expanding rapidly. Exactly what happened before that, during the first Planck times, is not known. We do know though that the universe began expanding then, and still is expanding currently at an accelerating rate. There is quite a lot to support this view.

    As for the origin of life, it belongs to a different part of science, that is biology and abiogenesis. I do not know exactly how much work has been done in that field though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 big bang 
    Forum Freshman varunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    india
    Posts
    5
    Want to know more about big bang ? I found a very informative website
    http://www.exploreuniverse.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    I do not understand this "Deus Ex Nihilo" concept. Why would God emerge from nothing, and the Big Bang not? Why imagine an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscent being when saying that the Big Bang simply emerged from nothing is a theory as well?

    I don't understand the whole deistic principle.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    I do not understand this "Deus Ex Nihilo" concept. Why would God emerge from nothing, and the Big Bang not? Why imagine an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscent being when saying that the Big Bang simply emerged from nothing is a theory as well?

    I don't understand the whole deistic principle.

    Mr U
    But yet here we are.

    I still stick to the theory that we are missing some fundamenty piece of the puzzle or that the answer is so simple or complex we just can't comprehend it.

    You also have to consider the fact that God would have created the universe, so having it appear out of nothing would not have been a big trick.

    Lets look at it this way, you see things on your computer screen right now that appear to come from nothing. If you know how a computer works internally you realize that what you see does not come from nothing. The universe could be the same way, we just don't understand the "true" building blocks, i.e. what makes up an atom, and below.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    You are suggesting we try to tear the universe apart and study it's entrails?

    What I mean is, why believe that God created the Universe, and than blame scientists for believing the Big Bang came 'out of nothing', it's just as impossible as God just coming from nothing, or forever being there, worse even: it is unlikely!

    You know, in my view, the apparition of anti-particles and particles in a complete vacuum, and them than colliding and causing energy to compensate for the created matter is the true solution, and I have posted this more than once :P. Anyway, I do believe there are ways to explain how everything came to be.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    What I mean is, why believe that God created the Universe, and than blame scientists for believing the Big Bang came 'out of nothing', it's just as impossible as God just coming from nothing, or forever being there, worse even: it is unlikely!
    Well this is based on the assumption that we know all the details. If we are missing key elements then the idea of God may become easier to understand, also the Big bang coming out of nothing may in fact not be the case, it may have come out of something we have no knowledge of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    You are suggesting we try to tear the universe apart and study it's entrails?

    What I mean is, why believe that God created the Universe, and than blame scientists for believing the Big Bang came 'out of nothing', it's just as impossible as God just coming from nothing, or forever being there, worse even: it is unlikely!

    You know, in my view, the apparition of anti-particles and particles in a complete vacuum, and them than colliding and causing energy to compensate for the created matter is the true solution, and I have posted this more than once :P. Anyway, I do believe there are ways to explain how everything came to be.

    Mr U
    Well, have you seen a bad horror movie? The ones where the monster has super-human power's for no reason, other than to dazzle the young, teenage audience? Well, the concept of a creator says it's all-powerfull. The big bang takes something that is not all powerfull and say's, it created everything we see today.

    Nobody is saying God came from nothing, but that there never was nothing. That God is the beginning of everything.
    http://anomalous.wordpress.com/ - Vist Blog To See Video and Photographic Strange Sh...Stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman Marc A.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer
    I must point out that a theory is not just something unproven that people make up out of thin air - after all, science is not religion or anything. A theory is, put simply a well-supported hypothesis.
    I'm a religious advocate here.

    "Relgious theories" aren't just made up out of thin air. They also arise from observation and inference. They may even claim support in some instances - the issue is that people view the scientific method as a superior method of discovering knowledge and thus apply the scientific method to religious theories in attempts to test them - and where "inconsistencies" crop up science is "the winner".

    But religion and science, though both forms of observation and inference are obviously rather different. Religion offers man what science cannot. A purpose. Theories say how it is how it is... but not why... religion has that to offer - of course here I am biased towards Christianity. Created for a purpose - whether by Big Bang, Dimension Collision... whatever.

    Religion and science arose out of man's forever quest to know why it is how it is. Science helps with how... religion offers why.
    Marc

    Creation, Cause, Free Will, Truth, Faith, Love; God
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Well, I believe that God did not came out of somewhere and caused the big bang. I believe that God is eternal and it does not have a beginning and end which is the fate of all things in our universe, including life. He existed in the infinite past and will continue to exist in the infinite future.

    This concept of no beginning and end is pretty alien to us as finite beings. Just like a fish simply cannot understand how can a human breath and live on land. (well, maybe not a very close analogy, but you get the idea right?)

    As for the theory of big bang, I dare not claim that it is proven to be absolutely true but as far as I have read, more and more observations point to its happening.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    todays theory of the big bang are really only an explanation of what occured after the big bang.

    the ultimate goal of the theory of everything may be to apply the teory to the big bang, because right now the laws of physics just break down when looking at that period of time that is only a fraction of a second after.

    as for religon and science, they go together much like General Reletivity and Quantum Physics, they describe there own worlds just fine but in areas in which they come together they just don't fit.

    as for God being eternal, one of the worlds leading Mythologists Joseph Cambel once said that 'eternity is with out time and has nothing to do with time.' seeing as we live in a world of time it is to damm hard to imagine a universe that is eternal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    If claiming that God is eternal is so easy, why not accept that the Big Bang just happened? How is it possible to be so hypocrite as to come and say. "No, no. God always existed", but demand from scientists to give answer to such a difficult question and point out that science does not have an answer when they come up with a difficult answer?

    todays theory of the big bang are really only an explanation of what occured after the big bang.
    This is not true. There are plenty of theories (non-deistic/theistic as well) regarding the origin of the Big Bang, one of which I presented earlier in this thread.

    But religion and science, though both forms of observation and inference are obviously rather different. Religion offers man what science cannot. A purpose.
    Perhaps, but is that neccesarily a good thing? Death itself is the ultimate motivator to get things done. Why need a purpose of a religion for that?

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    Nor religion or science are better than the other. Science gives a future. You work on something, research, whatever, your building a promising future and that future you can always change. religion gives a purpose, but to me the only thing it gives is monotone visits to the church and hours spend of prayers, it's not that promising....somehow i'm starting to miss the point...religion gives a purpose??? it does?? :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Marc A.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    ...religion gives a purpose??? it does?? :?
    Start a thread with that question in the relgions or philosophy forum and I'm sure you'l get some answers.
    Marc

    Creation, Cause, Free Will, Truth, Faith, Love; God
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    as for religon and science, they go together much like General Reletivity and Quantum Physics, they describe there own worlds just fine but in areas in which they come together they just don't fit.

    as for God being eternal, one of the worlds leading Mythologists Joseph Cambel once said that 'eternity is with out time and has nothing to do with time.' seeing as we live in a world of time it is to damm hard to imagine a universe that is eternal.
    Well, I am a beginner in relativity and quantum, so I can't say much about whether they fit or not. But I believe as more and more discoveries about them are made, we will slowly see more and more places where they fit. That's my personal view about this.

    And yes, I do agree that God Himself lives in eternity and therefore is out of the time thing that we are bound to. That is what I have heard from somewhere. He is not restricted or confined to time because He created time too. Hope I am not digressing too much. Sorry for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis
    If claiming that God is eternal is so easy, why not accept that the Big Bang just happened? How is it possible to be so hypocrite as to come and say. "No, no. God always existed", but demand from scientists to give answer to such a difficult question and point out that science does not have an answer when they come up with a difficult answer?

    todays theory of the big bang are really only an explanation of what occured after the big bang.
    This is not true. There are plenty of theories (non-deistic/theistic as well) regarding the origin of the Big Bang, one of which I presented earlier in this thread.

    But religion and science, though both forms of observation and inference are obviously rather different. Religion offers man what science cannot. A purpose.
    Perhaps, but is that neccesarily a good thing? Death itself is the ultimate motivator to get things done. Why need a purpose of a religion for that?

    Mr U
    Well, science is a method of understanding the physical universe around us. So, that includes Big Bang. And yes, we do know of many theories surrounding the big bang. So, we are only presenting one of them (one including God).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman starnamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by flying_kiwi
    Nor religion or science are better than the other. Science gives a future. You work on something, research, whatever, your building a promising future and that future you can always change. religion gives a purpose, but to me the only thing it gives is monotone visits to the church and hours spend of prayers, it's not that promising....somehow i'm starting to miss the point...religion gives a purpose??? it does?? :?
    IMO, the future that science can provide is temporal. Once you die, you future is gone. Probably your descendants can enjoy your future but that's their future, not yours anymore. Also, the future also needs a purpose. Or else, sooner or later, you will start thinking, "why in the world do I spend so much time in doing this?" Even if somehow humans manage to discover the secrets to overcome death, if there isn't a purpose in what they do (forever), then they will soon find it meaningless.

    As for church activities, I don't know about the environment of the church you went before. but guess religion is not just about attending church services and prayers. It about applying the principles of the Bible into your everyday practical life and making it meaningful for yourself and others.

    My 2 cents. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    why can't people define their own purpose?
    if someone wants to extend the lifetime for the average human being so that their decendants can do the same why must they turn to religion?

    this thread has changed topic so fast.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    61
    Basicly what the Bible is, is a thick book of Dos and Donts.

    And the purpose of doing something is making a better future, no matter if it is for yourself or somebody else, when you die you are not necceserly forgotten and ,people will still remember you and thank you and stuff.

    One more reason why people do things is because of lazyness.. Funny eh?? People got tired of walking so they invented cars. People got tired of spending time in tanning salons getting tan, and what do we have?? spray on tan ...etc...etc... as the other person here said, difine your own purpose. Make your own life, make your own mistakes and discoveries, don't rely on God. Cause guess what... when your hanging over a cliff about to die, he aint gonna help ya. (random eh?) I agree that everyone has to have something to believe in, but dont get too overboard with it..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    New Member panamaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1
    If we are missing key elements then the idea of God may become easier to understand
    I agree, if we were to have all the key elements, then this could lead to a unified theory of everything and possibly erradicate the need for God. But then again, if we were to discover all key elements, how would we know that they are correct and apply to the entire universe and not just or own corner. Furthermore, if one theory can be made to determine any/everything, then why should the equation/s determine that we do in fact draw the right conclusion. Couldn't it equally state that we never solve it correctly and are left following a path that never really gets anywhere. In turn, if we never achieve a correct theory, then the idea of God may always play a part that fills the gaps that we can't solve ourselves.
    "Life's A Show And We All Play Our Parts"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Well we always had space, otherwise we would have had no place to put all this matter. Many think of space as being nothing, I think of it as the vessel void of matter.
    But in actual scientific theory it is neither. According to the General theory of Relativity, space and time form a four-dimensional "fabric". There was no time before the Big Bang, and GR shows that there was no space, either. You made it sound like there was a vast empty space in which the Big Bang "holon" (Isaac Asimov's "particle of the whole, so to speak") was suddenly wished into existence and immediately decayed, expanded into and cooled. This is not the case. There was no such thing as space - it is the expansion of the dimension of space itself, expressed through the dimension of time is what constitutes the event of the Big Bang. It is for this reason that Alan Guth had to propose his "inflationary Universe" theory, before which there were serious theoretical problems with the original "expanding at the speed of light" theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope (In)Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    2,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Quote Originally Posted by (In)Sanity
    Well we always had space, otherwise we would have had no place to put all this matter. Many think of space as being nothing, I think of it as the vessel void of matter.
    But in actual scientific theory it is neither. According to the General theory of Relativity, space and time form a four-dimensional "fabric". There was no time before the Big Bang, and GR shows that there was no space, either. You made it sound like there was a vast empty space in which the Big Bang "holon" (Isaac Asimov's "particle of the whole, so to speak") was suddenly wished into existence and immediately decayed, expanded into and cooled. This is not the case. There was no such thing as space - it is the expansion of the dimension of space itself, expressed through the dimension of time is what constitutes the event of the Big Bang. It is for this reason that Alan Guth had to propose his "inflationary Universe" theory, before which there were serious theoretical problems with the original "expanding at the speed of light" theories.
    First of all, there is not a shread of evidence anywhere that proves time is anything other then a measurement of the changes in matter and energy. Space/Time is simply the use of the speed of light as a constant to help map out the great distances of space. It's still a measurement. So that blows a hole in the four dimensional theory.

    Next I see that you offer no explanation as to what existed before the big gang other then to say the dimension of space itself. This is where science starts to go screwy. I'll play along however and ask what was outside this so called dimension? So you say it couldn't be space as it didn't have enough time to expand to what it is now? If that's the case perhaps we are just wrong about the age of the universe.

    Don't offer a theory without answers. Those are pointless. What is outside of space before space existed? You have to answer this otherwise it's useless. What I said was that space simply always existed and is infinite. You may not agree, but at least it doesn't have holes.

    Space in my book doesn't have to contain anything in order to be called space. I realize some only call it space if it contains matter. We could measure this completely empty space by introducing matter and or energy in to it, we could for example use a laser to divide it in to grids and use the space/time model to map it out.

    Another thing, without something that changes (matter or energy) time can't be measured. It then becomes irrelevant. Without matter and energy nothing that we know of would exist, so nothing would be around to try to measure time. Time has to have a scale in order to work, a reference point to judge all other movements by. One could argue time still passed before anything at all existed, yet they can't possibly prove how much time passed based on our current scales or any other scale. This is where the true nature of time (just a measurement) comes out. Humans invented it to help sequence changes in the space around them. Without something that changes it becomes impossible to use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    First of all, there is not a shread of evidence anywhere that proves time is anything other then a measurement of the changes in matter and energy. Space/Time is simply the use of the speed of light as a constant to help map out the great distances of space. It's still a measurement. So that blows a hole in the four dimensional theory.
    Space-time is used as a co-ordinate system for objects that lie within it.
    if you going to meet someone you need 4 co-ordinates, those three which tell you the location in space (street adress, floor number etc) and you need a time reference.

    Next I see that you offer no explanation as to what existed before the big gang other then to say the dimension of space itself. This is where science starts to go screwy. I'll play along however and ask what was outside this so called dimension? So you say it couldn't be space as it didn't have enough time to expand to what it is now? If that's the case perhaps we are just wrong about the age of the universe.
    there was nothing outside these dimensions, it contains everything we observe to refer to a point outside it is impossible because there can't really be anything beyond, heance the word Nothing.
    As for the age of the universe, It's all relative.

    Don't offer a theory without answers. Those are pointless. What is outside of space before space existed? You have to answer this otherwise it's useless. What I said was that space simply always existed and is infinite. You may not agree, but at least it doesn't have holes.
    where is the evidence for your theory?
    P.S ever here of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Space in my book doesn't have to contain anything in order to be called space. I realize some only call it space if it contains matter. We could measure this completely empty space by introducing matter and or energy in to it, we could for example use a laser to divide it in to grids and use the space/time model to map it out.
    the same can obviously be said for time.

    Without matter and energy nothing that we know of would exist, so nothing would be around to try to measure time.
    Matter and energy can't exist without there being a place/time for it to exist in

    Time has to have a scale in order to work, a reference point to judge all other movements by. One could argue time still passed before anything at all existed, yet they can't possibly prove how much time passed based on our current scales or any other scale. This is where the true nature of time (just a measurement) comes out. Humans invented it to help sequence changes in the space around them. Without something that changes it becomes impossible to use.
    the concepts of measuring are human ones, it's true in order to measure something you need a reference, but who says that time itself needs measuring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior superluminal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    nowhere
    Posts
    259
    Remember, according to the currently accepted theory the big bang was an explosion of space (spacetime), not one in space. Matter condensed out of the inherent energy of this process. Science says nothing about the context in which this "explosion" occurred (if that even has any possible meaning).

    My gut feeling is that I want to know what this "context" was, but it may be forever beyond us. Or, again, it may be meaningless to even ask.
    Huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    if we want answers to this question we really need a better theory, or a theory at all, of Quantum Gravity.

    then we might be able to present a model of the universe at a time when all fundamental forces were unified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •