Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51
Like Tree27Likes
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 4 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By oxygel
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 1 Post By THoR
  • 1 Post By zinjanthropos
  • 3 Post By Cogito Ergo Sum
  • 4 Post By tk421
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: My theory of how our universe came to existence.

  1. #1 My theory of how our universe came to existence. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    10
    At the beggining i want to say sorry for my poor english. Ok, so big bang became from the state which contained time, energy, matter etc. Current theory says that there was no time before the big bang. I disagree. When child is getting life in his mothers body, from his perspective there was no time either before he was born. If he would get instantly separated and would never see other people then he would think "is this all got made when i was born?". But time started for THIS SINGLE CHILD, his mother and mother of other child were existing earlier. So can there exist many parralel universes? It could work pretty much like expansion of human being by borning new people which will born new people etc. So, there are black holes. They cummulate energy, matter, light into a state. There is theory that nothing can be transported through black hole. Yes it cant be until white hole will get open in other universe. Look , its all cummulating at the bottom of the hole, then in one moment black hole closes and white hole opens transporting state into a new universe. Now you can say people never saw white hole. Ofc they never saw and they will not see it in out universe anymore cause in my opinion, white hole was in our universe one time when state was transported to our dimension. Now, what contains empty dimension in which state wasnt transported yet? what type of matter does it have? Is it a key to our existence? Im waiting for answers, im 16, so its only a theory.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say ... but you might find this interesting: Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe | Inside Science


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    10
    Im trying to say that all the ppl who think there was no time before our universe got made are actually wrong. Cause there is one time and many universes in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by oxygel View Post
    Im trying to say that all the ppl who think there was no time before our universe got made are actually wrong. Cause there is one time and many universes in my opinion.
    It is an interesting thought, but remember that it is an opinion, not a theory. To make it a theory you need to have the following:

    Evidence to support your theory.
    A mathematical description of your theory.
    Predictions that would allow you to test your theory.

    Perhaps, one day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    10
    Thank you. I'm 16 and i need to learn these mathematical things etc. It's my life goal so ill do my best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by oxygel View Post
    Thank you. I'm 16 and i need to learn these mathematical things etc. It's my life goal so ill do my best.
    Welcome to the Forum, oxygel, and welcome to science!

    It's great that you are questioning the "received wisdom" of experts. As you do, be sure to ask things like "What experiment could prove them wrong?" It's not enough simply to feel that the old theory is wrong. There has to be a way to show it. And as you attempt to formulate your own alternatives, don't just stop at coming up with an idea. Pretend you're another skeptical you and ask "How might I be wrong? What experiment could I run to find out?"

    A good scientific theory makes testable predictions. If there are no testable predictions, then it's not a scientific theory. As John Galt said, it is then perhaps an opinion or assertion, but it's not a theory.

    The requirements for a new theory can be rather daunting, for the new theory not only must do something correctly that the old theory doesn't, it must also do all the same correct things that the old theory does. It's like trying to lay carpet. It's relatively easy to make one corner fit, but it's a lot harder to make all corners fit. A good replacement theory has to make more corners than the old theory fit. It's not good enough just to make one corner seemingly fit better.

    Keep studying, and as you do, questions will inevitably arise. Try to find out the answers yourself first. If you get stuck, or just want to check your work, post back. There are lots of folks here who are eager to help.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NIGERIA
    Posts
    1
    Just keep on researching and the future will tell. You have a great potential just build on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    isn't that like saying the egg came first?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by oxygel View Post
    Im trying to say that all the ppl who think there was no time before our universe got made are actually wrong. Cause there is one time and many universes in my opinion.
    Ok, think about the following : from wherever you are right now, start to walk ( geographically ) north. The further your walk, the closer you get to the north pole. When you are at the north pole, can you get any further north ? No, of course not, because when you stand at the pole itself, no matter which direction you turn, you will always face south.

    Same in space-time. Starting now, go back in time towards the Big Bang. The universe gets younger and younger. There comes a point which behaves just like the north pole, a pole in space-time, at which all directions can only point into the future. You cannot go "backwards" from there, just as you cannot go north from the north pole. It simply makes no sense.

    You do, however, have a point - there ought to be some initial conditions which gave rise to the Big Bang event, and it will be up to us to theorize just what those conditions were
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    10
    But you are at the start saying that our universe = earth, and if our universe = country? Then you could go further in north direction. Time could be a border of each universe. And if we could move in time we would also move to another dimensions imo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by oxygel View Post
    But you are at the start saying that our universe = earth, and if our universe = country? Then you could go further in north direction. Time could be a border of each universe. And if we could move in time we would also move to another dimensions imo.
    No, that would be destroying the analogy. Remember that the Big Bang gives rise to a geometric pole in space-time by definition; emphasise on space-time. You cannot extend space-time beyond the Big Bang, anymore than you can extend "North" beyond the north pole. Saying that universe=country is saying that the Big Bang might have happened at any time in the last 15 billion years, which is of course not the case.

    Naturally there is always the possibility that our universe is in fact embedded in a higher dimensional manifold, just like our earth's surface is embedded in space; but even if that is the case, you still could not extend "our" space-time any further than the Big Bang event. If you were to leave the earth's surface from the north pole, you are in fact going into an entirely new direction, and not further north. Likewise, if you were to leave the universe at the Big Bang, you aren't going "before" the Big Bang, but into a new spatial or temporal direction that is not related to "our" universe. "Before" the Big Bang is a meaningless term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    10
    I want to say that we shouldnt look for how our universe got made, but how all started , all the chain reaction. And time could be already separated from any dimension or universe and be on its own, all countries got the same directions that u can go to. It could be a tunnel in which you can go and just choose the "doors" in which you wanna go. If there is a corridor and a lot of rooms then corridor isnt a part of any room. Time could be an axis.
    bgi likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    904
    thats what scientists already do. for example, iron or heavier elements weren't there at first. they formed/appeared after fusions of other/lighter elements. and about that corridor, it's assumed that traveling through a wormhole could lead to a different time or dimension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by oxygel View Post
    I want to say that we shouldnt look for how our universe got made, but how all started , all the chain reaction. And time could be already separated from any dimension or universe and be on its own, all countries got the same directions that u can go to. It could be a tunnel in which you can go and just choose the "doors" in which you wanna go. If there is a corridor and a lot of rooms then corridor isnt a part of any room. Time could be an axis.
    This is not in accordance to our current understanding. The consensus is that space and time cannot be separated from one another, they are part of the same entity, space-time. The study of the geometry and evolution ( and to some extent topology ) of this manifold is called geometrodynamics, and, in physics, is quantified in General Relativity. Thus far, the predictions this model makes are all in accordance to experiment and observation.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by oxygel View Post
    At the beggining i want to say sorry for my poor english. Ok, so big bang became from the state which contained time, energy, matter etc. Current theory says that there was no time before the big bang. I disagree. When child is getting life in his mothers body, from his perspective there was no time either before he was born. If he would get instantly separated and would never see other people then he would think "is this all got made when i was born?". But time started for THIS SINGLE CHILD, his mother and mother of other child were existing earlier. So can there exist many parralel universes? It could work pretty much like expansion of human being by borning new people which will born new people etc. So, there are black holes. They cummulate energy, matter, light into a state. There is theory that nothing can be transported through black hole. Yes it cant be until white hole will get open in other universe. Look , its all cummulating at the bottom of the hole, then in one moment black hole closes and white hole opens transporting state into a new universe. Now you can say people never saw white hole. Ofc they never saw and they will not see it in out universe anymore cause in my opinion, white hole was in our universe one time when state was transported to our dimension. Now, what contains empty dimension in which state wasnt transported yet? what type of matter does it have? Is it a key to our existence? Im waiting for answers, im 16, so its only a theory.
    Why does something exist rather than nothing?

    AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

    It's a rather simple axiom, intrinsically self-evident since any who might dissent must first confess a belief in things that don't exist (they now have
    medications for this). At first one might consider the premise to be obvious and inconsequential, but its deeper significance categorically refutes both the mythology of Genesis and the mathology of Big Bang.

    If being is necessary in order for change to occur then cause and effect is derived from, thus subordinate to, the more basic phenomenon of being. Existence is the source of cause and effect not the result of it, and no phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative.

    It doesn't take an Einstein or Hawking to recognize the obvious, all it takes is an unbiased perspective; thinking not outside the box nor inside the box, but discarding the box entirely. This isn't rocket science; it requires no esoteric equations, no orbiting telescopes or expensive particle accelerators; you don't need a degree in math, physics or cosmology, or even a high school education to understand it. It's simple basic common sense - something contempory scholars seem to shun when it threatens the funding of expensive research to determine the "size and age" of an infinite and eternal Universe. In the ivory tower of academia, multiverses, extra dimensions and cosmic expansion into entropy death are where the real money is (with some strings attached). Beautiful equations can describe fantasy as easily as fact, but without the capacity to parse differentials with any degree of integrity, no lowly layman would dare debate the sanity of such sophistocated branes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    42 The answer to everything.
    The Huntsman likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Yup, south Texas.

    If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent Texas and live in Hell. - P. Sheridan.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Crank word salad
    Ah, yes. Your logical counter-argument has forever changed my perspective. I marvel at the astuteness with which you refuted each and every point.
    Thank you for bringing me back into the fold of conventional wisdom, but heed that wisdom and sail ye not too far out into the Universe lest thou fallest from the edge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Yup, south Texas.

    If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent Texas and live in Hell. - P. Sheridan.
    I own both. Make me an offer.
    bgi likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,637
    Quote Originally Posted by oxygel View Post
    There is theory that nothing can be transported through black hole. Yes it cant be until white hole will get open in other universe. Look , its all cummulating at the bottom of the hole, then in one moment black hole closes and white hole opens transporting state into a new universe. Now you can say people never saw white hole.
    If I could look back towards a black hole event horizon as I fall in what would I see? A white hole? Take a look at this. Pretty!!
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.
    Ice is the result of a phase transition; yet it is nothing like water, since it has completely different properties. Likewise space-time may well be an emergent property of a more fundamental state which is in itself not spatio-temporal in nature, but endowed with a finite number of degrees of freedom ( example : spin-foam networks in Loop Quantum Gravity ). The BB event may thus be understood as a phase transition within a quantum liquid of pre-geometric simplexes, where space-time "freezes out" as an emergent phenomenon ( this is called geometrogenesis ). Just my two cents' worth.

    In any case, the Lambda-CDM model does not make the claim that the BB "came from nothing"; it makes no claims whatsoever as to the dynamics of the event itself, since that is outside its domain of applicability. All it does is model the universe's subsequent evolution. Your attempt to discredit the theory because it violates your philosophic principles is thus entirely meaningless. We don't have a dynamic model of the BB event itself yet - but we do have a number of possibilities, such as the one mentioned above for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Why does something exist rather than nothing?

    AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.
    Whether true or not, your axiom doesn't seem to be relevant to ... well, anything. And it certainly doesn't address the question you ask. Unless your answer to "why does something exist" is simply "because it exists". <yawn>
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Why does something exist rather than nothing?

    AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.
    Whether true or not, your axiom doesn't seem to be relevant to ... well, anything. And it certainly doesn't address the question you ask. Unless your answer to "why does something exist" is simply "because it exists". <yawn>
    Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality. Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.
    The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality. Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.
    The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.

    I have no idea what you are trying to explain here.

    Although my knowledge of modern physics and cosmology is sadly limited, it does not seem plausible that the majority of the cosmologists parrot a 'secular genesis version of Big Bang', because Michio Kaku's research is focused on string theory, nor have I ever heard of the expression "secular genesis version". Furthermore, I fail to see how a theory, supported by observational and mathematical evidences put together by the collective efforts of many (respected) scientists, is mired in Genesis mentality (as if the Big Bang theory resembles the "Goddidit!" story).
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; June 11th, 2014 at 08:56 AM.
    Strange, adelady and PhDemon like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality.
    There is absolutely nothing in common between cosmology and creationism/genesis/religion. One is based on evidence and mathematics, and the other is a load of old stories. What parallels are you drawing here?

    Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.
    Who is Mishou Kaku? Is he a cosmologist? What does he say? Do I care? (Not much.)

    The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.
    I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Crank word salad
    Obviously you did not appreciate the dense use of puns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality.
    No. That statement reveals that you are so ignorant about cosmology that you should refrain from making assertions about it until you get some education. Genesis is a set of fairy tales about creation, and is conspicuously free of evidential support. Modern cosmology -- in the form of the "Big Bang" theory -- is about evolution, not creation. And it's a theory, with lots of evidential support from multiple, independent lines. So, unless "mired in" means "totally unrelated and scientifically superior to", your statement is ridiculous.

    Marcus...
    Perhaps you mean Markus. With a k. If not, then who the hell is this Marcus that you refer to?

    ...points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang
    Ah, I guess you did mean Marcus, for our Markus said no such thing. Mishou is Michio's evil twin, and has not published anything about a "secular genesis version of Big Bang (sic)."

    - but they are sadly in the minority.
    The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.
    You writings are very much reminiscent of the sort of earnest, drearily pseudoprofound claptrap that freshmen turn in for philosophy midterms. Before you make any more grand pronouncements about the sorry state of cosmology, you need to find out what cosmologists are actually saying. You have only read a select subset of popsci articles and wiki entries, it seems.

    Yawn indeed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality. Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.
    The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.

    I have no idea what you are trying to explain here.

    Although my knowledge of modern physics and cosmology is sadly limited, it does not seem plausible that the majority of the cosmologists parrot a 'secular genesis version of Big Bang', because Michio Kaku's research is focused on string theory, nor have I ever heard of the expression "secular genesis version". Furthermore, I fail to see how a theory, well-supported by observational and mathematical evidences put together by the collective efforts of many (respected) scientists, is mired in Genesis mentality (as if the Big Bang theory resembles the "Goddidit!" story).
    Pick up a copy of his book: Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. It's about $12 on Amazon. He seems to acknowledge the possibility of something before BB, but I have heard him explain many times to the laity on the tube that even space(time), itself, was "created" by the BB.

    Cause and effect (creation) is derived from the phenomenon of existence, not the opposite. Conditions may pop into and out of being, but fortunately existence is not a condition - it engenders the very nature of condition, itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Pick up a copy of his book: Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. It's about $12 on Amazon. He seems to acknowledge the possibility of something before BB, but I have heard him explain many times to the laity on the tube that even space(time), itself, was "created" by the BB.

    Cause and effect (creation) is derived from the phenomenon of existence, not the opposite. Conditions may pop into and out of being, but fortunately existence is not a condition - it engenders the very nature of condition, itself.

    And did he use the term "secular genesis version" in his book?

    Furthermore, I still do not understand why the claims of Mr. Kaku are an indication that current cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality, nor do I grasp why the majority of the cosmologists would parrot the ideas of a scientist who does not seem to be involved in active research concerning the Big Bang theory.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Pick up a copy of his book
    No thanks. I have seen him talk for about 5 minutes. That was approximately 5 minutes too much. Why are you listening to / reading people like him? Can't you find any decent science books where you live?

    Cause and effect (creation) is derived from the phenomenon of existence, not the opposite. Conditions may pop into and out of being, but fortunately existence is not a condition - it engenders the very nature of condition, itself.
    I have absolutely no idea what that means, if anything.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Pick up a copy of his book
    No thanks. I have seen him talk for about 5 minutes. That was approximately 5 minutes too much. Why are you listening to / reading people like him? Can't you find any decent science books where you live?

    What is wrong with listening to Michio Kaku?
    I find his talk about e.g. the four fundamental forces quite interesting.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Pick up a copy of his book: Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. It's about $12 on Amazon. He seems to acknowledge the possibility of something before BB, but I have heard him explain many times to the laity on the tube that even space(time), itself, was "created" by the BB.

    Cause and effect (creation) is derived from the phenomenon of existence, not the opposite. Conditions may pop into and out of being, but fortunately existence is not a condition - it engenders the very nature of condition, itself.

    And did he use the term "secular genesis version" in his book?
    No.

    Furthermore, I still do not understand why the claims of Mr. Kaku are an indication that current cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality, nor do I grasp why the majority of the cosmologists would parrot the ideas of a scientist who does not seem to be involved in active research concerning the Big Bang theory.
    My experience with the science of cosmology does not lead me to believe its disciples lean toward an infinite and eternal cosmos.

    IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite unless it expanded at an infinite rate or for an infinite time. If it did NOT begin, those limits come off. The axiom that something must exist in order to change or be changed is prime evidence of a Universe Einstein envisioned, until he was distracted by the Hubble red shift illusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    What is wrong with listening to Michio Kaku?
    Nothing - until he starts talking out of his hat.

    Why do physicists think they are masters of all sciences? – Pharyngula
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What is wrong with listening to Michio Kaku?
    Nothing - until he starts talking out of his hat.

    Why do physicists think they are masters of all sciences? – Pharyngula

    That was painful to watch. Seriously. My respect for Kaku has shrunk a little.

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Furthermore, I still do not understand why the claims of Mr. Kaku are an indication that current cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality, nor do I grasp why the majority of the cosmologists would parrot the ideas of a scientist who does not seem to be involved in active research concerning the Big Bang theory.
    My experience with the science of cosmology does not lead me to believe its disciples lean toward an infinite and eternal cosmos.

    IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite unless it expanded at an infinite rate or for an infinite time. If it did NOT begin, those limits come off. The axiom that something must exist in order to change or be changed is prime evidence of a Universe Einstein envisioned, until he was distracted by the Hubble red shift illusion.

    Would the notion of a hot dense state (as proposed by the Big Bang theory) not imply that the universe is finite?
    And what with the measurements of WMAP, which allowed us to calculate the age of the universe and gauge its observable size?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    My experience with the science of cosmology does not lead me to believe its disciples lean toward an infinite and eternal cosmos.
    Your "experience" with the science of cosmology appears to be almost non-existent. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to decide if the universe is finite or infinite, or eternal or not. I'm sure there are cosmologists who have a preference for each of the four possibilities and all the myriad variations. But that is pretty much irrelevant as it ain't science.

    IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite
    Not really. IF it was created, then there is no reason it couldn't have been created infinitely large. As you are speculating about something for which there is zero evidence, you can make up anything.

    the Hubble red shift illusion.
    In what way is the observational data of the Hubble relationship an "illusion"? Are you claiming that red-shift does not exist? It is some sort of mass hallucination?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    What is wrong with listening to Michio Kaku?
    Nothing - until he starts talking out of his hat.
    Which, as far as I can tell, is all he ever does.

    Why do physicists think they are masters of all sciences? – Pharyngula

    http://xkcd.com/793/
    tk421 and Flick Montana like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Would the notion of a hot dense state (as proposed by the Big Bang theory) not imply that the universe is finite?
    Not necessarily. If the universe were infinite and it "expanded" (became less dense) then it would still be infinite. Imagine the infinite number line marked with the integers like a ruler:
    ... -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ...

    Now double all the numbers (and therefore their spacing):
    ... -4 . -2 . 0 . 2 . 4 . 6 ...
    It is still infinitely long, just half as dense.

    And what with the measurements of WMAP, which allowed us to calculate the age of the universe and gauge its observable size?
    The observable universe is finite (almost by definition) and of known age (with all the usual caveats). The size and age of the "whole" universe is less clear. Was there a single big bang for the whole universe, multiple big bangs in different regions, just different rates of expansion (and maybe contraction) in different regions ... ? Who knows.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    My experience with the science of cosmology does not lead me to believe its disciples lean toward an infinite and eternal cosmos.
    Your "experience" with the science of cosmology appears to be almost non-existent. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to decide if the universe is finite or infinite, or eternal or not. I'm sure there are cosmologists who have a preference for each of the four possibilities and all the myriad variations. But that is pretty much irrelevant as it ain't science.
    My studies on the subject are considerable. My conclusions based on the interpretations that support the current cosmological model are seriously at odds.

    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', a simple Doppler analysis of the red shift would indicate galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

    This would have been a burdensome inconvenience to cosmologists, but, instead, they've deftly explained away the extra-logical velocity by proposing it's a phenomenon caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they wish to substantiate.

    The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.

    We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. Empirically there are few research facilities of sufficient size and even fewer scientists of sufficient longevity to engage in such a monumental endeavor. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum after eons of time and travel.

    IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite
    Not really. IF it was created, then there is no reason it couldn't have been created infinitely large. As you are speculating about something for which there is zero evidence, you can make up anything.
    Last time I checked the conventional model, the singularity was infinitesimal (by cosmological standards).

    the Hubble red shift illusion.
    In what way is the observational data of the Hubble relationship an "illusion"? Are you claiming that red-shift does not exist? It is some sort of mass hallucination?
    Op Cit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,896
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    My studies on the subject are considerable. My conclusions based on the interpretations that support the current cosmological model are seriously at odds.
    You're embarrassing yourself. Seriously. Step away from the keyboard. Go read some real papers on the subject. Take some classes. Not only on cosmology, but basic logic.

    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion.
    That's just one of many pieces of evidence of support for BBT. You left off important bits such as the cosmic microwave background, light-element ratios, etc., etc. It's almost as if you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

    Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears
    Strange, perhaps, but that's what we observe. When one puts that observation together with GR, one has a scientific theory of the evolution of the universe. And when we test that theory's predictions, we get agreement with other observations. So dismissing something merely because it seems strange to you personally impresses me not a bit.

    ...and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', a simple Doppler analysis of the red shift would indicate galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.
    Yup. The universe is very interesting! And doesn't give a damn about whether you like it or not!

    This would have been a burdensome inconvenience to cosmologists, but, instead, they've deftly explained away the extra-logical velocity by proposing it's a phenomenon caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they wish to substantiate.
    That would be amusing if it weren't so profoundly ignorant. You use the word "logic" a lot, but seem not to have a clue about what the word means. In this case, you are simultaneously citing special relativity's prohibition against superluminal velocities, and then attempting to use it to deny general relativity. Since GR fully subsumes SR, you cannot selectively use SR to falsify GR. To attempt to do so would be...illogical. In short, you are clueless. Please take my earlier advice: Stop making assertions about things you clearly know nothing about.


    The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.
    And purported mathematical incongruities that are falsely constructed by a clueless would-be logician should be ignored, if not ridiculed.

    We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years.
    Just because you declare it thus? Wow. What a colossal ego. Dunning and Kruger hit the bulls-eye again!

    Empirically there are few research facilities of sufficient size and even fewer scientists of sufficient longevity to engage in such a monumental endeavor.
    Why do the scientists have to be long-lived? Do you not realize that technology has given us the ability to acquire knowledge over time-spans that far exceed the lifetimes of individual humans? That this technology also allows us to acquire knowledge over vast geographical distances? That the printing press exists? Get your head out of your arse, man.

    There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum after eons of time and travel.
    Look up "tired light." It's a tired hypothesis. And a failed one. Sure, invisible pink unicorns might exist, too. But until we have evidence, there's no reason to invoke their existence.
    Last edited by tk421; November 4th, 2013 at 07:18 PM.
    adelady and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.
    Actually, I must reiterate again that "Big Bang Theory" specifically refers to what happened after the Big Bang, i.e. it is about the evolution of the universe as opposed to its origin. As such all cosmologists agree on the main features of BBT. The area where there is considerable disagreement and speculation is the question of the dynamics of the BB event itself, i.e. the question as to the origin of that event. The idea of geometrogenesis I was referring to is just one among many such speculations.

    IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite unless it expanded at an infinite rate or for an infinite time.
    No, that doesn't follow. Remember that the BB event is not an explosion, where everything starts at one central point and then expands outwards. It is better to picture the 4-dimensional universe as static - then pick two arbitrary points in that universe at random. As you go back along the time axis, the distance between these points would become smaller and smaller purely as a result of the geometry of the universe; this is analogous to the distance between the longitudinal lines on earth becoming smaller and smaller as you approach a pole. At the BB, the distance between any two points in the universe is exactly zero; this does not preclude the notion that there are actually infinitely many such points - they just aren't spatio-temporally separated from one another. When you run the clock forwards again, you will find infinitely many points on an infinitely large manifold all receding from one another. In other words - the BB happens everywhere in an infinitely large universe. This is hard to explain in words, but can be made mathematically rigorous; in any case, the idea of an infinite universe is not at all incompatible with BBT.

    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion.
    Cosmological redshift is just one among a multitude of observational data points; you cannot consider it in isolation. When you put all observational and theoretical evidences into a bigger picture, you will find that the BBT model is the one that best fits all available data, not just redshift.

    There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum after eons of time and travel.
    Inventing purely speculative mechanisms such as the above that have no basis in either theory or experiment does not, in my mind, present a viable or credible alternative to the BBT model. The fact remains that BBT is currently the best model to explain all observed data while remaining entirely within the framework of established theories such as GR and QFT; that does not, however, mean that BBT is the end of all wisdom, or will not one day be augmented by something else.
    If you argue that space does not metrically expand, then you will have to invalidate the entire Theory of Relativity, because metric expansion is an inherent property of the geometry of space-time. I trust you will find that hard to do, while bearing in mind that this theory has been tested and verified to a very high degree.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    In other words - the BB happens everywhere in an infinitely large universe. This is hard to explain in words, but can be made mathematically rigorous; in any case, the idea of an infinite universe is not at all incompatible with BBT.

    Does that mean that the CGI representations of the Big Bang (often used in documentaries) do not resemble what actually happened?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    My studies on the subject are considerable.
    You should ask for your money back.

    My conclusions based on the interpretations that support the current cosmological model are seriously at odds.
    Guess where the problem lies? (Clue: it isn't in the science.)

    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion.
    Among many other things.

    Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears
    That isn't the least bit strange. It is exactly what you would expect from the basic idea that the space between things is increasing at the same rate everywhere. Consider a few points in space:
    ABCDEF...

    Over time, they move apart, with the space between each increasing by the same amount:
    A.B.C.D.E.F...
    A..B..C..D..E..F...

    Note that the distance between A and B (or B and C, or F and E) has increased by two units in two time steps. So the speed of separation is 1.

    But look! The distance between A and C (or B and D, or between F and D) has increased by 4 units in two time steps. So the speed of separation is 2.

    Pick any pair and you will see that the speed of separation is proportional to how far apart they are. Nothing strange at all. In fact it would be decidedly odd if this relationship didn't hold. This is one of the observations that rather obviously supports the big bang model over alternatives.

    Now there will be points far enough apart that their speed of separation is greater than the speed of light.

    Does that matter? No.

    Where do you get the idea that "things cannot travel faster than light"? From Einstein's theory of relativity.
    Where does the description of the metric expansion of space come from? From Einstein's theory of relativity.

    Is it possible that the theory of relativity is so internally inconsistent that it predicts something which it says is not allowed? Of course not. (And this can be proved mathematically.)

    We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years.
    Actually, we do. One of the very first attempts to explain the red shift was based on that idea. And falsified by observation.

    There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum after eons of time and travel.
    Sounds like you want to claim some magic undetectable cause. But that isn't science. And, more importantly, fails to account for all the other evidence.

    Last time I checked the conventional model, the singularity was infinitesimal (by cosmological standards).
    The singularity isn't a thing, so that is barely relevant. If you subscribe to the (faintly risible) notion that the universe was ex-nihilo then what difference is there between a finite universe being created from noting and an infinite one? They both sound equally impossible.

    Basically, if the universe is infinite, then it has always been infinite. If it is finite, then it has always been finite.

    Op Cit
    In other words, you don't have an alternative explanation beyond, "it could be something else."

    That is not helpful and fails to explain any of the other evidence. But thanks for playing. Please try again when you have learned something about the theory.
    adelady, tk421 and DogLady like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Does that mean that the CGI representations of the Big Bang (often used in documentaries) do not resemble what actually happened?
    Can you link me to a specific example of what you are thinking of, and I will be happy to give my assessment on how accurate I think it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Does that mean that the CGI representations of the Big Bang (often used in documentaries) do not resemble what actually happened?
    Can you link me to a specific example of what you are thinking of, and I will be happy to give my assessment on how accurate I think it is.

    Sure.

    A video of Deep Astronomy (starting around 0:30):
    What Caused the Big Bang? - YouTube

    A video starring Kaku and Krauss (starting around 8:30):
    The Big Bang HD 1080p - YouTube
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post

    A video of Deep Astronomy (starting around 0:30):
    What Caused the Big Bang? - YouTube

    A video starring Kaku and Krauss (starting around 8:30):
    The Big Bang HD 1080p - YouTube
    To be honest I am not very impressed with either one of these; they both are far too suggestive of the BB being some form of "explosion", which it most emphatically was not. Furthermore, some of the things that were asserted as fact ( e.g. "the universe originated from nothing !" ) aren't actually facts at all, but merely speculations and hypothesis.

    Now, having said that, I have yet to find a popular account of the BB which is scientifically accurate while still being understandable for the lay person; that is a fine and very difficult balancing act. I can in the first instance recommend the following excerpt from a presentation by Dr Bethany Cobb on metric expansion of space :

    Our Expanding Universe, Explained - Bethany Cobb - YouTube

    You will find no fancy cinema-grade CGI here, but if you carefully follow what she has to say, you will get a simple and straightforward explanation for the concept of metric expansion ( it's only about 5min long ). I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll do some research for an intuitive and accurate animation depicting the BB and expansion of space.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Now, having said that, I have yet to find a popular account of the BB which is scientifically accurate while still being understandable for the lay person; that is a fine and very difficult balancing act. I can in the first instance recommend the following excerpt from a presentation by Dr Bethany Cobb on metric expansion of space :

    Our Expanding Universe, Explained - Bethany Cobb - YouTube

    You will find no fancy cinema-grade CGI here, but if you carefully follow what she has to say, you will get a simple and straightforward explanation for the concept of metric expansion ( it's only about 5min long ). I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll do some research for an intuitive and accurate animation depicting the BB and expansion of space.

    Thank you for the YouTube link. I comprehend what she said, but it demonstrates that I need visual aid to understand (complex) things.
    Documentaries often depict the Big Bang as bright, infinitesimal small point that exploded (they sometimes add a "bang" sound) and was then filled with glowing gases.
    Wrong visual aid, so it seems.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Documentaries often depict the Big Bang as bright, infinitesimal small point that exploded (they sometimes add a "bang" sound) and was then filled with glowing gases.
    Yes, and the issue with this is that it invokes an idea of the BB being an "explosion" of sorts, where a hot, dense seed explodes and expands "outwards" into something else ( which is left unspecified ). That is not what happened though.
    I will try and find a good animation/visualisation that better depicts the principle at play - not an easy thing, I must say. Mostly everything I came across thus far depicts an "explosion", even people like Michio Kaku, who should really know better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    bgi
    bgi is offline
    Forum Freshman bgi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    30
    stupid thought- have you ever wondered if time is a gas and could be frozen?
    Every bit of knowledge in the world is either a science or an art, and mathematics connects the two.

    Music, behind silence, is the second best way to express the inexpressible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by bgi View Post
    stupid thought- have you ever wondered if time is a gas and could be frozen?
    There are so many flaws in that suggestion that it would be best not to mention it again.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by bgi View Post
    stupid thought- have you ever wondered if time is a gas and could be frozen?

    No, I have not.

    Your statement reminds of a phrase of member RedPanda:
    And if we looked at Time as an orange flavoured rabbit, we could say that Time makes a very tasty stew, perhaps.
    (cf. http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...xperience.html)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The observable universe is finite (almost by definition) and of known age (with all the usual caveats). The size and age of the "whole" universe is less clear. Was there a single big bang for the whole universe, multiple big bangs in different regions, just different rates of expansion (and maybe contraction) in different regions ... ? Who knows.

    Do you think that there was a single Big Bang for the Universe? Or do you have other speculations?
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman ukjojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    14
    OXYGEL I think that's such an interesting theory and very impressive for someone of 16 to be thinking so laterally and so creatively. I hope you don't get put off by some of the people here who are telling you to be more rigorous, because there's plenty of time for that when you get older and are in university - for now your brain is unconstrained and so enjoy your freedom to think and to invent new speculations about things.

    Your theory about black holes spewing out universes like babies (great analogy oxygel) and that in other universes opposite black holes there may be white holes is something I've heard before in a TV documentary on BBC FOUR about the possible origins of our universe from scientists who are working on alternative theories to the big bang. So you do have company in your idea and it's not so 'crazy', because theorists imagine all kinds of possible answers before trying to prove them.

    I wish you well with your scientific future!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 19th, 2013, 11:10 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 6th, 2012, 09:39 AM
  3. Theory of Variance and the Existence of Life on Earth
    By himoura in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 21st, 2011, 06:20 AM
  4. The outside of the universe- The abscene of existence/time
    By RosenNoir in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 21st, 2009, 07:30 AM
  5. NEW Theory of Everything (existence, life, time) all :D
    By origin_of_existence in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 7th, 2007, 12:22 PM
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
  •