Scientists explore what happened before the universe's theoretical beginning

"And Who lit the fuse - on what?"

If the universe appears like giant black hole (as the AWT is assuming), it should evolve and undulate like giant quantum wave packet.

http://superstrun...wave.gif

After then, it may not be so easy to distinguish between periodic and nonperiodic models of Universe history, because both periodic, both aperiodic behavior is possible here, as follows from quantum wave animation.

"Even if the universe, or multiverse, were around forever, this would not challenge the theological explanation of the world's existence," Haught said.

Wow...faith is armor to withstand any assault of reason.

"Even if the universe, or multiverse, were around forever, this would not challenge the theological explanation of the world's existence," Haught said.

Wow...faith is armor to withstand any assault of reason.

So is science apparently. If there are infinite universes that have "been around forever" then it's a certainty that in one (and hence by definition all) of them there is a God. If all possibilities are bourne out then it's a given.

So is science apparently. If there are infinite universes that have "been around forever" then it's a certainty that in one (and hence by definition all) of them there is a God. If all possibilities are bourne out then it's a given.

Modernmystic,
First you stated "If all possibilities are bourne out..." - If that is correct then in at least one of them there is NOT a god.

Thereby your statment "...(and hence by definition all)..." is False

So is science apparently. If there are infinite universes that have "been around forever" then it's a certainty that in one (and hence by definition all) of them there is a God. If all possibilities are bourne out then it's a given.

You cannot make any specific prediction about an individual universe that is one of an infinite number. You cannot say that since there are an infinite number of universes, one of them must have a god, or unicorns, or a person exactly like yourself but with a different favorite flavor of ice cream. Here's a simple example why. Suppose you have an infinite list of numbers. You cannot say that one of them must be the number 32.5 if it turns out that the infinite list ends up just having odd integers in it.

So is science apparently. If there are infinite universes that have "been around forever" then it's a certainty that in one (and hence by definition all) of them there is a God. If all possibilities are bourne out then it's a given.

Modernmystic,
First you stated "If all possibilities are bourne out..." - If that is correct then in at least one of them there is NOT a god.

Thereby your statment [sic] "...(and hence by definition all)..." is False

Therein lies the rub, God by definition is omnipresent...he's everywhere. IOW it only takes one universe for him to exist in to exist in all of them.

Again, this is only if you buy into the infinite universes/parallel universes stuff. Personally I don't.

"And Who lit the fuse - on what?"

"Who wants to know?" (quoting the Indian mystic Balsekar's reply to the famous "Who am I?" query.

"Even if the universe, or multiverse, were around forever, this would not challenge the theological explanation of the world's existence," Haught said.

Wow...faith is armor to withstand any assault of reason.

So is science apparently. If there are infinite universes that have "been around forever" then it's a certainty that in one (and hence by definition all) of them there is a God. If all possibilities are bourne out then it's a given.

You have to assume that God is a possibility for this to be true. I say "God" is not possible, therefore he does not exist in any universe.

"Even if the universe, or multiverse, were around forever, this would not challenge the theological explanation of the world's existence," Haught said.

Wow...faith is armor to withstand any assault of reason.

So is science apparently. If there are infinite universes that have "been around forever" then it's a certainty that in one (and hence by definition all) of them there is a God. If all possibilities are bourne out then it's a given.

You have to assume that God is a possibility for this to be true. I say "God" is not possible, therefore he does not exist in any universe.

Spoken like a true believer. A creationist couldn't be more closed minded :)

The one criterion to tell science from non-science is falsifiability.
Therefore neither religion nor "multiverses" are scientific subjects.
Believe whatever you want - but don't pretend to be scientific about it.

You have to assume that God is a possibility for this to be true. I say "God" is not possible, therefore he does not exist in any universe.

Spoken like a true believer. A creationist couldn't be more closed minded :)

Do you understand logic? If infinite universes give rise to all possibilities, then all possibilities will exist. However, if "God" is not a possibility then it will not exist. Saying God can exist doesn't make it possible--even in infinite universes.

Give me a logical argument for the existence of any god (omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent) then I'll consider it with an open mind.

Do you understand what infinite means?

If really did then you'd know I don't have to give you a "logical argument for the existence of God".

I'm talking about possibilities, you are not.

A universe that contains both an immovable object and irresistible force cannot possibly exist. The two exist only with mutual exclusivity.

Infinite universes will give way to infinite possibilities, but it will not give way to a single non-possibility.

So provide me a description of a God that is not both an immovable object and irresistible force and I'll listen.

I'm not going to "argue" with you for the same reasons I don't argue with creationists anymore...there's no point.

However a universe can contain an immovable object and an irresistible force...as long as the two never meet (say through runaway expansion or some other mechanism). There are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamed of in your smallish philosophy good sir.

I won't waste any more of your valuable time, either. Since you believe an immovable object can be movable there is absolutely no sense having any discussion about it.

I won't waste any more of your valuable time, either. Since you believe an immovable object can be movable there is absolutely no sense having any discussion about it.

And for reference an immovable object and an unresistable force can exist in a universe and meet. They just cannot act upon each other.

Let's say non baryonic matter and gravity both exist in the universe. And that non baryonic matter cannot be acted upon by gravity.

Through what manner of interaction would the two be mutually exclusive if there is an impossibility for interaction?

I wonder how the author considers that the religius myths could be relevant with modern cosmology and does not make a single reference to the ancient greek scientific theories. Especially why the author ignores the greek philosophers like Lefkipous, Democritous, Epicurus, Metrodorus who developed the most logic, rational, materialistic, monistic, scientific, mechanical theory THE ATOMIC THEORY. A theory without metaphysical entities or gods or satans or anything like that, a theory which also validated by modern science and cosmology.
Do i need to refer Carl Sagan and what he says in the series COSMOS about Democritous?
I just want to point in this movie http://www.caid.g...tus.html
presented in INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE FILM FESTIVAL
But is not only that: The truth is that religions destroyed science and scientists. Apostole Saoul himself in Acts 9:19 burns thousants of scientific books in Ephesus. Also religions burnt more than 1 million papyri in Library of Alexandreia.
Religion has nothing to do with science, they are two different, opposite and discrete things.

Through what manner of interaction would the two be mutually exclusive if there is an impossibility for interaction?

Really? What manner of interaction would there be if there was no interaction?

My point is that if something is defined as existing mutually exclusive of something else, then the two in combination is impossible. So, not everything you can dream up is possible--not even in infinite universes.

Do you understand what infinite means?
/ Modernmystic /
==================
Does infinity have any physical parameters?

The Universe is Infinite Vacuum in the state of T=0K,
at first of everything. Why? Because it is visual fact.
#
The Universe as whole is Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness
in a state of T=2,7K ( after big bang). If somebody belief in
%u201C big bang%u201D, he must take in calculation that T=2,7K expands
and therefore T=2,7K is temporary parameter and with time
it will go to T=0K.
#
Last August ( 2007), ground and satellite observations revealed
what appeared to be an enormous "hole in the universe,"
a mostly empty region of the sky, 900 million light-years
wide - about 5 billion trillion miles -%u2026%u2026%u2026%u2026
Where are the gravitational waves here ?
The gravity is zero.
If in the Universe astronomers found enormous spaces without
Any material mass or energy it means these spaces in state T=0K.
#
Only mass and energy can warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot %u201C close %u201C the Universe and therefore
the Universe is %u201C open%u201D, endless and this small mass can warm up the
Kingdom of Coldness only in it some limited and local points.
Therefore astrophysicists search for %u201C dark matter%u201D because it will save
the %u201C law of gravitation %u201C as a first law of the Universe and it will
warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
#
The cosmological constant of Universe is zero or near to it.
This physical quantity cannot %u201C close%u201D the Universe therefore
the Universe is endless.
http://en.wikiped...constant
#
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
Authors: Matt Visser (Washington University in Saint Louis)
(Submitted on 19 Apr 2002)
Abstract: Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently
enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented
in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravit
is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was
argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field
theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum
elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will
translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various
versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market.

Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
--Matt Visser
http://arxiv.org/.../0204062
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing%u2014the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discoverma...erything

========================..

http://discoverma...cs/space
============================== . .
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf