No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

February 9, 2015 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature

This is an artist's concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. Credit: NASA
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the , as estimated by , is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or . Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

Old ideas revisited

The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.

Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of , the does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.

No singularities nor dark stuff

In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.

Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.

In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

New gravity particle

In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.

In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.

Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for and , the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.

"It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das said.

Explore further: Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole

More information: Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das. "Cosmology from quantum potential." Physics Letters B. Volume 741, 4 February 2015, Pages 276–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057. Also at: arXiv:1404.3093[gr-qc].

Saurya Das and Rajat K. Bhaduri, "Dark matter and dark energy from Bose-Einstein condensate", preprint: arXiv:1411.0753[gr-qc].

Related Stories

Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole

May 31, 2013

(Phys.org) —Physicists Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin of University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Louisiana State University respectively, have applied the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) to a simplified ...

Penrose's and Hawking's early math award revisited

November 18, 2014

In 1966, it was Roger Penrose who won the prestigious Adams Prize for his essay "An analysis of the structure of space-time." The Adams Prize – named after the British mathematician John Couch Adams – is awarded each ...

Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

September 24, 2014

Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not ...

Quantum steps towards the Big Bang

September 3, 2013

(Phys.org) —Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only an all-encompassing ...

Recommended for you

Dark matter 'hurricane' offers chance to detect axions

November 13, 2018

A team of researchers from Universidad de Zaragoza, King's College London and the Institute of Astronomy in the U.K. has found that a "dark matter hurricane" passing through our solar system offers a better than usual chance ...

Structure of fossil-fuel source rocks is finally decoded

November 13, 2018

The fossil fuels that provide much of the world's energy orginate in a type of rock known as kerogen, and the potential for recovering these fuels depends crucially on the size and connectedness of the rocks' internal pore ...

Atomic parity violation research reaches new milestone

November 12, 2018

A reflection always reproduces objects as a complete mirror image, rather than just its individual parts or individual parts in a completely different orientation. It's all or nothing, the mirror can't reflect just a little. ...

507 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.6 / 5 (24) Feb 09, 2015
In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.


I gotta see their math. I was just talking about this sort of model yesterday and the day before. I think this is potentially better relativity both at the cosmic level and the local level because it introduces a mechanism to relate mass to space itself via a mediating particle, which is something relativity doesn't do. I got some critics from Ira and another guy about the Michelson Morley experiment and such. I don't see any reason an "fluid" model can't still work to tie gravity and space together in a single mediating substance or set of substances.

I will read the paper a little now and some later if there is no pay wall.
orti
1.7 / 5 (31) Feb 09, 2015
"Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

i.e. We have to get rid of the big bang because it implies physics is not god. (Same with the anthropic principle. So, multiverses.)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (40) Feb 09, 2015
This one is going to be fun to watch...:-)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (35) Feb 09, 2015
@ Returnering-Skippy. How you are today Cher and where you at, huh? I'm still fine and dandy again me, thanks for asking.

I gotta see their math..


Skippy that has never slowed you down before. Usually you just make up something that sounds like a person with a mental condition playing at being the scientist. Why now you have to see some maths, what's different with this one?
Returners
1.5 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2015
From Paper:
Its exact form is not important to our argument however, except that it is non-zero and spread out over the range of the observable universe. This follows from the requirement of causality; even if matter exists beyond the horizon, it will have no effect on what is inside the horizon, including the wavefunction.


This still implies no model would ever suffice for the entire universe, but only that which is within our light horizon, which means that the guy on "Science" and "Big Think" was still correct. Even a "Theory of Everything" can't actually model "Everything".

Substituting L0=1.4×1026 m, one obtains m≈10−68 kg or 10−32 eV, quite consistent with the estimated bounds on graviton masses from various experiments [25], and also from theoretical considerations [26], [27], [28] and [29]. In other words, we interpret the quantum condensate as made up of these gravitons, and described by a macroscopic wavefunction.


That is a small particle.
Returners
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2015
That's close to the number you get if you divide a kilogram by the Cube of Avogadro's Number.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (31) Feb 09, 2015
The reality of the James Webb telescope's infrared capability to see through the sacred Primordial Gas Cloud has finally begun.

When the JWT starts bringing into view myriads of galaxies hypothesized by Big Bang Cosmology not to exist, bye, bye BB.

The consequence will be that the universe will be proven to be much older & bigger than Big Bang Funny Farm science could ever have imagined. Big Bang Theology will be scrapped to the ashbin of history & redshift theoreticians will be scrambling to rewrite their equations to deal with a new reality of math they once thought was settled science.

So, what will Cosmology Science of the future look like without a BB? Standby.....it'll be a fun ride.

diginet90
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2015
As engineer, i see the Big Bang as an impulse response h(t) of a system (initial Black box). What did have the black box inside? Well, if it had been empty, the impulse just had passed through wit no change... but is not the truth. May be i will analyze it after i die.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
So, what will Cosmology Science of the future look like without a BB? Standby.....it'll be a fun ride.

Benni,
Even as a crotchety, foul mouthed ROC - I have to agree with that statement...:-)
(Altho - I like Retired Old COOT, better...)
Returners
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2015
This implies that the laws of thermodynamics as we know them are slightly flawed and need corrections.

For the record, this actually does not produce an infinite monkey history of the universe, as we can readily demonstrate strings of infinite numbers which nevertheless provably do not contain all possibilities. This is slightly relevant because it still means the universe has one history, or more generally each universe (if there is more than one) has one history.

It means that Entropy is somehow a form of order at the cosmic level even though it appears to be disorder locally. This I had suspected already anyway.

They will need computer models to understand much of anything beyond our common experience and intuition, because visualizing these corrections is pretty freaking hard.

Can it predict future threshold events, such as reionization or the appearance of all-new particles or entity-properties as local energy levels change?
Returners
1.3 / 5 (26) Feb 09, 2015
This also appears to be a mathematical proof that it's possible for things to exist outside the universe, and that it's possible for infinite reality to exist, which is two key points atheists don't get; the "Who made God" question is actually answered by these equations, in that an infinite Being can in fact exist without cause.

Also, I should suggest that a formula showing past infinitude does not necessarily mean that an infinite past actually exists, it simply shows that if it did exist it would have those properties.

You can imagine running a finite clock backwards infinitely, but that doesn't make the operation valid.

The assumption of constant laws is axiomatic, and does not necessarily hold philosophically true for a sub-set of reality, but only for the fundamental.

So the equation cannot describe the entirety of reality, but only the observable universe, though it can imply that there may or may not be things beyond what it can describe.
MP3Car
5 / 5 (27) Feb 09, 2015
orti: You're missing the idea that the new theories or models do not automatically make it factual and "the word" of science, and other model is wrong. When we don't know how something works with an extremely high confidence level, all we can do is keep building models, proposing theories, etc. The authors of this study likely would not make the claim that their model is "right" and singularity models are "wrong" but instead they present it as a POSSIBLE explanation.

You have made other comments that show you need to try and have more of an open mind. You commented on another article, "If, in an ideal environment (earth), life only began once in 4.5 Byr, why expect it to sprout everywhere spontaneously?" I think you're missing several points; one is 100B to 200B galaxies out there, and each contains billions and even trillions of stars. All of the recent planet findings have been in our galaxy alone, only looking at ~150,000 stars of the ~300,000,000,000 in the milky way.
Z99
1.8 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015
It is basic Science philosophy that extrapolation can act as a guide to discovery, new physics, etc. but it is rarely accurate and more often than not not even close to correct. Extrapolating our Laws of Physics into the far past and to energy densities far from what we know doesn't make such fiction valuable. I have a noticed a couple of 'red flag' comments - indicating a abundance of noise without any light. First is talk of those 'parts' of the "Universe" which are NOT causally connected to ours, second is talk of multiverses (which by definition are not ever going to be subject to measurement/observation) and third is talk about visualization of 4 or more dimensional physics. I suggest if you hear any of that in a thread, you ignore the comment entirely, its almost certainly rubbish. If it can't, even in principle, be measured, then it ain't physics. If you think you can visualize a 10 or 26 dimensional universe (or an infinite dimensional quantum universe) I welcome you to try!
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (38) Feb 09, 2015
which is two key points atheists don't get; the "Who made God" question is actually answered by these equations


That's missing the point.

The theist argue that everything comes from something, therefore there -must- be a God, which gives rise to the question, "who made God?". The whole question is a response to the inherent contradiction in the definition of God as the necessary first cause.

If you contend that something doesn't need to be caused by anything to exist, you actually destroy the theist argument; God as a creator, or creation itself as a single event, is no longer necessary for things to exist.

Unless you explain why God would be the only thing that can exist without a cause, everything can exist without God.
MP3Car
4.6 / 5 (24) Feb 09, 2015
This also appears to be a mathematical proof that it's possible for things to exist outside the universe, and that it's possible for infinite reality to exist, which is two key points atheists don't get; the "Who made God" question is actually answered by these equations, in that an infinite Being can in fact exist without cause.


Returners: Not sure how you come to that conclusion... Most of us on phys.org believe it is not only probable that life exists elsewhere, but that it is also highly likely. Not sure how the use of math and modeling makes a case for the existence of a God.

And as far as the lack of "hearing" anything from another world that deniers claim... A parallel earth could be down the street just 100 light years away and we wouldn't hear it yet. Now think about a parallel earth orbiting a star that is 100,000,000 light years away (still fairly close)... Something tells me dinosaurs weren't broadcasting RF.
movementiseternal
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
qitana
4.9 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
Isn't gravity mediated by the curvature of space?

Doesn't the Earth move around the sun because the sun curves space in such a way that the earth can stay in orbit?

Cause... if the curvature of space explains how gravity is mediated, the existence of gravitons seems to be awkward as they seem unnecessary

Could someone explain?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2015
In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity.


Quantum patch. Are we finally witnessing the death throes of the Huge Bang Fantasy??

LaViolette is way ahead with his etheric fluid model, where space is composed of a multitude of undetectable sub-quantum particles which, under proper diffusive conditions, ignite into a self-sustaining, propagating, transformation reaction that we label a sub-atomic particle. Like sound wave propagation in air, photon reaction propagation is limited by the ultimate transformation reaction speed set by characteristics of the local diffusive medium. And since disturbances of the transforming medium extend well in advance of and into the surrounding medium from the moving photon reaction, the double-slit experiment is easily explained.

Baseline
4.8 / 5 (30) Feb 09, 2015
This also appears to be a mathematical proof that it's possible for things to exist outside the universe, and that it's possible for infinite reality to exist, which is two key points atheists don't get; the "Who made God" question is actually answered by these equations, in that an infinite Being can in fact exist without cause.


Sigh yet another who can not understand that atheism does not require an explanation of how it all began or a requirement to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theist.

If I am to play a game where the eternal disposition of my "soul" is at stake I will get the rules of the game directly from the game master, not some middleman with his or her own agenda. Until that day comes I will live my life the way I choose to and my choices do not require me to convince you that I am right about what I believe.
brodix
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2015
I've yet to understand how space can expand relativistically, if the speed of light doesn't increase to match. Of course, if it did, there would be no doppler effect to explain redshift, since redshift requires the light to take longer to reach the receiver and thus be redshifted.
When I point this out, the usual response is "the light is just being carried along by the expansion." Which overlooks the fact that it's the redshift of this light traveling intergalactically, on which the proof of the theory is based. So there is supposed to be expanding space, based on the redshift of intergalactic light and we know this because we can compare it to stable units of measure, based on the speed of the exact same light???
Of course, every time observations refute this theory, some enormous new force of nature is proposed and accepted.
brodix
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2015
We accept gravity is "equivalent" to acceleration, but the surface of the planet isn't rushing out to keep us stuck to it. Couldn't there be some optical effect, "equivalent" to recession, causing redshift. As an optical effect, the reason we appear at the center would be quite logical.
If it compounded on itself, it would explain why this expansion curves parabolically and so no need for dark energy. Also the CMBR would simply be light from ever more distant sources, shifted completely off the visible spectrum and so be the solution to Olber's paradox.
Or we can stick to inflation, dark energy and multiverses.
I can only wonder if another generation of cosmologists will chase after that goose, or will they wise up and push the reset button.
ryankarl39
4.7 / 5 (15) Feb 09, 2015
@reset: "Recognizing the requirement to deal with "singularities" is a major step forward. Suggesting space is composed of theoretical particles is 11 steps backwards."

If you are saying gravitons and the quantum fluid are merely theoretical while the big bang and inflation are not, you are actually standing still and not taking a step in any direction - sticking with the status quo does not equal scientific progress.

This theory is seeking to replace one current theory of the universe. If, as mentioned in the article, it fits with current observations and gets rid of the uncomfortable truth that the entire theory breaks down at the beginning with the big bang, it is truly a step forward. The current model of the universe fits well with some observations, as did Newtonian Physics, but just like Newton, there were many areas Einstein did not understand or have the ability to observe. Its only a matter of time before a new theory supersedes it.
hudres
1.5 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015
1. The drawing is probably incorrect. In all likelihood, the explosion and expansion would be isotropic and thus should be represented by an expanding sphere.
2. The problem with the Big Bang is that it begs the question "What was there before it?". Personally, I favor a cyclic universe which undergoes periodic expansions, followed by contractions, followed by a singularity state (Big Bang), and then repeats ad infinitum. It is difficult to prove this as there is no "memory" across a Big Bang event. I believe Hawking postulated something like this in one of his earlier works.
PsycheOne
1.3 / 5 (19) Feb 09, 2015
The Big Bang and subsequent collapse have strong implications for anyone who believes that consciousness preceded substance. Not talking God, just consciousness. (Admit it: you believe in consciousness!)

If indeed spirit evolves through multiple incarnations in the apparent physical universe, then if the universe finally collapses, all the spiritual advances of billions of lifetimes get wiped out. As child Alvy says in Annie Hall, if the universe is doomed "What's the point?".

Again, if consciousness preceded substance, then the Big Bang start point is a problem, because consciousness is eternal. No big bang, no problem.

I like this new theory and am rooting for it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (21) Feb 09, 2015
"Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt"

"theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics"

David Bohm... "was also, more unusually for a scientist, inspired by mysticism. Indeed, in the 1970s and 1980s he made contact with both J. Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama whose teachings helped shape his work"

-I suspect religious philo voodoo mysticism.
Not talking God, just consciousness
Consciousness is the favored substitute du jour for the soul. It is as fantastical as is god.
ppnlppnl
3.9 / 5 (21) Feb 09, 2015
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?
arpit_kh
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015
Well, isn't it the same thing which ancient texts of hinduism says
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cycle_of_the_universe
jb1516
4.2 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
When things get too dense and the calculations begin to fall apart I don't think you just throw up your hands and say "Well, the universe existed forever" and go home for the day. That's just not a solution worth accepting.
NickCalderon
3.4 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
This is absolutely fascinating! I have always been a fan of the multiverse theory. The equation will have to predict CMB though, let's just wait and see.
PsycheOne
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2015
TheGhostOfOtto: when you say consciousness is a myth are you saying you are not conscious??

arpt_kh: given that Hinduism posits cyclical annihilation, what does it say about the spiritual advancement achieved in one of those cycles? Is it completely wiped out? Do we all start again as amoebas (or less)?
liquidspacetime
1.2 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2015
Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicswor...ws/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"

Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.g...023.html

"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain."

The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2015
1. The drawing is probably incorrect. In all likelihood, the explosion and expansion would be isotropic and thus should be represented by an expanding sphere.

In all likelihood, you are right. However, this picture allows one to label epochs and not have other quadrants of the sphere confusing the visualization and type.
It's simplified. Big Bang for dummies...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2015
TheGhostOfOtto: when you say consciousness is a myth are you saying you are not conscious??
2 entirely different things as you know. Or maybe you dont. And if you think they arent then you dont know what you are talking about.

"One of the book's more controversial claims is that qualia do not (and cannot) exist. Dennett's main argument is that the various properties attributed to qualia by philosophers—qualia are supposed to be incorrigible, ineffable, private, directly accessible and so on—are incompatible, so the notion of qualia is incoherent. The non-existence of qualia would mean that there is no hard problem of consciousness, and "philosophical zombies", which are supposed to act like a human in every way while somehow lacking qualia, cannot exist."
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
h00hbt
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015
Mass and energy lasts forever, although they can convert. As they exist today, they always did in one way or another. Saying that the universe is so and so old is like pulling a rabbit from a hat.......
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2015
1. The drawing is probably incorrect. In all likelihood, the explosion and expansion would be isotropic and thus should be represented by an expanding sphere.

In all likelihood, you are right. However, this picture allows one to label epochs and not have other quadrants of the sphere confusing the visualization and type.
It's simplified. Big Bang for dummies...


.....yeah, they make it look "anistropic" giving a misleading appearance of the universe beginning at the bottom end of the barrel of a cannon. They always do that because "isotropic" makes the universe look too much like the quasi-sphere that Einstein describes in his GR, or maybe the artists never took an isometric drawing course in college & consequently don't comprehend how to make an accurate drawing.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Wheeew
4.8 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
If the universe has no beginning, and the time it has existed is infinite, then, Shouldn't we already have reach a state of thermal equilibrium (second law of thermodynamics)? And therefore a state of entropy = 0? Or am I wrong? :v
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Wake
1 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2015
I don't know how many have followed my complaints about the Big Bang Theory or how corrections to make the trajectories of the physically visible universe work through dark matter and energy are philosophically counter-intuitive even if mathematically effective.

While the illustration is trying to use 2 dimensions to illustrate a 4 dimensional problem I still have a problem with that "expansion" period and am more of the mind that the "change of state" from a prior universe is probably more closely on track. While a lot of energy had to be injected into the universe for the immense distances and speeds to be obtained it does not therefore infer that it was injected at a point. Perhaps the theory of black holes representing a hole into another universe is correct and that the energy in this is coming from a "lower division universe" into ours via many many "black holes" of theirs.

So do we look for the energy sieves?
Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015
If the universe has no beginning, and the time it has existed is infinite, then, Shouldn't we already have reach a state of thermal equilibrium (second law of thermodynamics)? And therefore a state of entropy = 0? Or am I wrong? :v


So you think "heat death" should have occurred long ago, is that it? Tell us more about it.......
movementiseternal
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
drew51
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015
The certainty of the universe having a beginning that involves a big bang may be in doubt, but the certainty that is argument will have no end, is certain.
mbee1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
Before jumping on the bandwagon, it would be helpful to remember this is a pure guess. The math is simply window dressing to the pure guess.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
Ha!
Was wondering how long before ol' "movementis..." started yackin'..
luvinspoon2001
1.8 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
4 + 1...OK but who said gravity can work in hyper-dimensions? Oh its an assumption...Well I will stick with observation and observation clearly indicates that gravity is a gauge phenomena, not a quantum phenomena. The fact that gravity is a gauge effect and works within a 3 + 1 manifold kinda rules out hyper-dimension....
luvinspoon2001
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2015
Sorry but my previous post was for a different article, for some reason it ended up here, but the article I wanted to post is actually closed to posting now.
Gregman2
1.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015
The logic suggests that it's because the universe never achieves its cosmological constant that it is without beginning/end. Not sure how this is measurable. Also, it suggests we live in a potential universe...one that hasn't started yet. Which makes no sense.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rocket77777
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015
This goes well with my theory that OUR universe is just other side of event horizon of black hole. Thus multi-bang multi-verse.
And other theory that dark matters are universe in different dimension where we are only connected by gravity.
xtsam
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
Always fascinated by the big bang, very small and hot and having everything in it needed to make the universe, how does that happen? What is before that and where is that from? Think about it, it is mind boggling that there is no beginning and no end. For the big bang, at least we have sort of a beginning.
fowlowl1955
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
As usual this is extremely interesting yet even in a fairly low tech article I get lost in the jargon and concepts so I have to approach it from an intuitive or philosophical level. But what comes to mind is aside from the mathematical calculations, much of what we understand seems to come from ever more sensitive technical devices. I hope and wonder if mankind can exist long enough to understand and produce such inventions to point us in a definitive direction of the "theory of everything." Personally I prefer a big bang/big crunch model of the universe seeing it as aesthetically pleasing as a continuous, recycling and self contained system without beginning or end.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2015
A university press release on fringe science that shouldn't have been posted without critical review. Two problems stand out:

1. The problem with Bohm theory is that it isn't relativistic. [ http://en.wikiped...lativity ] Enforcing the relativistic Friedmann equations from cosmology is just cosmetics.

2. This is also problematic:

"the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity,".

That has never been true, since it necessitates extrapolating GR into the Planck regime where it breaks down. [ http://en.wikiped...theorems ]

Moreover, since a decade it has been known that nature seems to avoid a singularity here as elsewhere:

"... inflationary cosmologies avoid the initial big-bang singularity, rounding them out to a smooth beginning." [Ibid]
adam_omara1
1.4 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
The big Bang is the beginning of the human race universe , what is beyond that i think our physics cant answer that question for now unless we understand what is dark matter .
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
paul-r
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015
I've never understood sciences need to believe in systems that are least flawed. Just because we can our current understanding of the universe to measure it doesn't makes those measurements correct. It's obvious the big bang theory is flawed because is doesn't explain time before the singularity.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rotoscience
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
I like your approach:

"The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity."

At least its not like String Theory in this respect, which I don't respect. I hope you continue to develop this newish theory. I'm not bent to dark matter. Not sure your result that the Universe does not have an age. That gives me doubt. But doubt and proof resolving this is the foundation of physics and all science. I really like what you are doing.
Zog the Great
4 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
So where does this leave Sheldon and Leonard et al?
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?


Sir Fred Hoyle knows.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (18) Feb 09, 2015
As WG said, fun to watch! Very many nuts of woo as expected, even creationist antiscience trolls which should stick to their magic sites of voodoo. (Or is it woo doo - they do fancy magic agencies making life out of clay!?)

But also some lucid and even contextual points for once:

@MP3Car:

"You commented on another article, "If, in an ideal environment (earth), life only began once in 4.5 Byr, why expect it to sprout everywhere spontaneously?""

As you say, that misses several points. Darwin responded to that question nearly 2 centuries ago: life can only start once (or not, or a few times), because later attempts will be food for existing life. Everyone interested in astrobiology should know this.

Instead we can look at how fast life was established on Earth, which means it is easy and/or often repeated attempts, and hence life should be common.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 09, 2015
This is science fiction and not science. More evidence points to the Big Bang Theory than away from it. This includes the Biblical account of Creation which all these atheist wackos are really trying to undermine with all their malarkey about dark energy, dark matter, gravitons, the Higgs Boson and all the other modern day physics non-sense.


Hey, hey, hey there.......the Biblical account of Creation is the Big Bang.....!!!!!! Have you never sat down with a checklist to compare the "stretching" & "inflation" of the two hypotheses of the beginning stages of the universe? In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015
@qitana: "Cause... if the curvature of space explains how gravity is mediated, the existence of gravitons seems to be awkward as they seem unnecessary".

Physicists expect everything to be quantum physics at its basis. Therefore (and because the theory breaks down at high energies/small scales), general relativity is known to be effective. (I.e. a good but not complete description.)

Gravitons is what you get out of gravity when you quantize it same as every other field. It is also an empty "slot" among particles (spin =2, max spin allowed in QP, which no standard particle has - they have 0 (Higgs), 1/2 and 1 while 3/2 is set aside for supersymmetry). However, those gravitons only show that GR is compatible with QP, not that the theory is complete.
Neros Fiddle
1 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015
Existence itself is infinite. It must be. The Big Bang is a remarkable point in time but pondering why anything exists at and HOW everything exists is truly and ultimately inexplicable.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015
@Wheeew: "If the universe has no beginning, and the time it has existed is infinite, then, Shouldn't we already have reach a state of thermal equilibrium (second law of thermodynamics)?"

@xtsam: "lways fascinated by the big bang, very small and hot and having everything in it needed to make the universe, how does that happen? What is before that and where is that from?"

The age of the local universe is precisely established (at 14 billion years) since WMAP tested inflationary cosmology 2004. What happens is that the universe comes out of a cold, rapid expanding state (inflation), whereupon the inflation field potential energy gets converted to heat (Hot Big Bang).

Inflation may or may not be eternal backwards, we can't tell yet, but since the inflationary multiverse (the most likely configuration) has always been expanding it has no equilibrium to attain.

[tbcdt]
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tonybudz
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
Exactly correct, something came out of nothing and impacted with something which created the big bang.

Be it internally or externally is unknown, however since we can assume it was of a bigger whole before it expanded, we can assume it had eternity to prepare for it.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
[ctd]

If inflation isn't eternal backwards, likely it has fluctuated into being - the universe is zero energy and inflation is a quantum scalar field after all - and it has then done so an infinite number of times, making an infinite set of eternal multiverses that stretches back and forward into eternity.

That is a good enough solution, since physics makes sense but its absence does not, you can't for example make a distribution on anything else than events.

************
@Losik, responding to my comment:

Sorry, I can't help you, you don't make any sense.

Maybe you should start study physics? It usually helps to understand the issues before asking questions or commenting on known science.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015

Hey, hey, hey there.......the Biblical account of Creation is the Big Bang.....!!!!!! Have you never sat down with a checklist to compare the "stretching" & "inflation" of the two hypotheses of the beginning stages of the universe? In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation.

So...if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory?
kwphilly
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
somethings always existed and i think that the universe always existed
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jimpliciter
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
One gets the distinct impression that no one has a clue. Cosmology seems a horrible was of time. Even if we arrived at the correct account what went down- what would we do with it? Sit there and stare at it like a nice painting a wall?
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2015
Posted by the Uncle Ira bot-voting troll (and village idiot) to Returners:
@Returnering-Skippy....Usually you just make up something that sounds like a person with a mental condition playing at being the scientist.
This Ira-bot idiot hasn't yet realized that in his own case that same sentence could be truncated to read...
Usually you just make up something that sounds like a person with a mental condition
...and it would explain perfectly his Ira-BOT-voting, trolling and village-idiotic driveling. Poor insensible sod hasn't yet realized that all his "smart peoples" (whom idiot-Ira-bot has been trolling-bot-voting and skewing, and people/discussion sabotaging, on behalf of) have now been proven WRONG and me RIGHT. So where does that leave this Ira Moron? Yep, you guessed it, folks...just as wrong as his "smart peoples"; and just as dumb as when "it" first started bot-voting, trolling and driveling here and elsewhere. Poor useless Internet Moron Uncle-bot.
bierzoj
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015
Bewitching subject....I'm probably the least qualified here to give an opinion....but I love the theme....do not understand everything is said here but I read it anyway...sometimes the light comes on...one gets a glimpse of something REAL...and big....Other time one gets a whiff of BS....but all in all....I keep on coming back.....thanks.
This is the most important of all subjects...to attempt at learning where we come from....and where we goin'
t_d_lowe
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015
I wonder if their model can be applied to the singularity inside black holes. I would imagine, for consistency, that black holes would also lose their singularity, which might allow the inside of them to be modeled and evolved through time.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Night Rider
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
The only trouble with an eternal universe is sooner or later it'll run out of fuel...
Benni
1.4 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2015
Hey, hey there...the Biblical account of Creation is the Big Bang.....!!!!!! Have you never sat down with a checklist to compare the "stretching" & "inflation" of the two hypotheses of the beginning stages of the universe? In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation.

So if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory?
.......yeah, just my point, they're the same.

Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written, to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.

There is a small horde of astrophysicists who are just beginning to sound the alarm bells that the James Webb telescope with its infrared spectrometry, will in just a few years hence take a mask off a universe heretofore unimagined. Cosmology will go through a rebirth when the JWT takes pictures of galaxies on the other side of that Primordial gas.

julianlzn
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
"World without end, amen...
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
the_alien
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
It is mind boggling, to say the least! Enough to make you mental! I think the "big bang" did happen and is responsible for life on this planet, and changes that took place on other planets within this solar system and was with the explosion of a planet, in it. lol!
Mace Kelly
1.3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
Works for me perfectly as it just makes sense to me, and is consistent with Buddhist cosmology and insights.
frank2pc
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
I am that I am, therefore so was the universe, if you believe in a God or whatever the Supreme Being is, then the universe had no beginning, it always was!, just as God always was! Very difficult for the human mind to comprehend this because we can't conceive of a "no beginning"
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LITWCaretaker
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
If you were a Supreme being explaining to your creations how they were made (children always ask where babies come from), and intellectually the Supreme was as far separated from his creations as we are from lab mice, how would YOU explain the Universe's beginning.. Let there be light, separating the heavens from the firmament etc makes a lot more sense as a way we would explain it to first graders doesn't it? Its a massive oversimplification of an unfathomable answer.

We cant know EXACTLY how the universe began, nor Exactly how it will end. We didnt see it start, we won't see it end, and we have already missed a lot of the best parts.

Math and physics continue to refine by degrees how close we are to a "True" answer. whether it is explaining gravity,time, or matter. The real truth is realizing that the rabbit hole really does not have a bottom, only levels, and a door that goes down -when you find the key.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015
But the truth is, the evidence against Big Bang existed from its very beginning - even his co-author Edwin Hubble was aware of it.

.......and as the Big Bang goes, so goes Creation, they are one in the same. Cosmologists have for years been trying to figure out how to beat back the methodology of Creationists adopting many of the principle tenets of BB. They see their opportunity with the JWT, that it will discover that the vaunted Primordial Gas Cloud is not what they have assumed it to be, the edge of the universe.

If the JWT spots galaxies opposite the Primordial Gas, down the tubes goes the BB & cosmologists will be freed from the chains Creationist theology. Cosmologists want as much distance between themselves & Creationists as possible, and they get it if they can get pictures of galaxies opposite the Primordial Gas; ummmmh, tongue in cheek here, they're praying for it.
carlino1369
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it but: what about the loss of energy over time? Since we can visibly see objects losing heat energy faster than it can be gained, wouldn't that still mean that at some point a massive amount of energy had to be inserted into the universe? I know people love looking into the past for the answers about our now, but in this case I think pondering about the future would be more helpful. What happens after all the energy in the universe is back at 0? Does this paper even comment on entropy at all?
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2015
It is truly miraculous how God used only a finite amount of time to create a past infinite universe.
Urgelt
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015
So this model is compatible with our interpretation of red shift (SR's reciprocal time dilation makes it unnecessary to correct red shift for any time dilation effects).

It will not be compatible with our interpretation of red shift if we use directional time dilation from Lorentz's Absolute Transformation. In that case all of our cosmological measurements will require significant corrections.

I think it's about time we nailed down whether reciprocal time dilation is in fact operant over cosmological distances. Or any distances, for that matter. Thus far experiments demonstrate that time dilation is real; but except for GPS, they don't tease out the difference between reciprocal time dilation and directional time dilation. And for GPS, directional time dilation is the only solution that yields accurate geopositions.
senseii1
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
Funny how western educated science buffs and physicist believe there has to be a beginning and an end to everything, Where as many Asians believe that there is NO beginning and an end for/to the universe. Matter keeps on transforming and trans-mutating from "one form" to another.
bruce37b
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015
It never did occur to me that there was a beginning to our universe. It seemed obvious that after a certain amount of time (less then 200 billion years) that gravity would pull together enough mass to create a big bang, probably happening many times. I said less then 200 billion years because protons can only last that long. I have not done the math for what happens to properties without the 'drag' factor.
hrfJC
1 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
Glad to see the demise of Big Bang an irrational hypothetical construct without scientific rationale since the mass at this event would have to be infinitely large to account for the cosmic debris, aka galaxies and who would push the button? Far more rational is relying on supernatural explanations such as formation from void or nothingness at infinity past, not natural scientific explanations that fail to explain humanly unknowable pre Bang events.
nineball26
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
considering the "visible" universe at this point is around 14 billion light years sure who's to say thats the end of it all

common sense, logic and everything else will tell you space is infinite, time is infinite therefore the universe is infinite, if its not then whats there? solidness? a wall? think about it, if there is an "end" to the universe or space whats there, a road sign? "you have reached the end of the universe" .. "the end of space is forward another trillion billion light years" .. "have a safe journey"

it NEVER ENDS therefore it never has a beginning, were not in the middle, edge or beginning we are simply here, in it.. a part of it
popgun
1.8 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015
God created things in such a way that only those who truly seek him WILL find him, so we can believe whatever we want to believe - it's called free will. But a being that lives outside of our reality, who creates our reality, seems more feasible to me than matter creating itself from nothing. There has to be some intelligence there to "think" it into existence. Matter has no intellect - it simply is. When something IS created, it's done in a lab, by intelligent beings - US. And even then, it's only a rearranging of atoms that already existed in another form. But since the existence of a being outside of space/time can be neither proven nor disproved, perhaps a better argument for atheists would be to simply say, "I don't WANT to believe."
Wisco
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
I'm always bothered by things like this. Since time began with the Big Bang, the concept of 'before the Big Bang' is nonsense. There was no 'before'; you can't have a series without time. Therefore, you can only have events happening post-bang.

It's about at this point that my head explodes from trying to wrap my brain around the article. Science needs another English tense.
jerry_bushman_7
1.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
I've been saying this for years. I have the rest figured out too, just waiting for everyone to catch up to me
thiago_thesaints
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
"Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation"

Ah, of course.
ssatak
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015
Heh. Well, if the universe has no beginning, the attempts by scientists working to prove this have no end. Fair's fair, I guess.
madeinspace
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015
IF "with big IF" this theory happens to be true with no beginning and end of universe. Does that also mean time is illusion/unreal?
MandoZink
4.5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,"

Well, just how far behind the times were these people when they figured this out. The backwards extrapolation to a singularity using relativity dates back to the original Big Bang notion, which has long since been replaced by the much improved idea of cosmic inflation. Einstein's equations work well for the present, future and the past, but only back to the point where extreme conditions cannot be explained by relativity, and thus require quantum interpretation. The possible complexity of the quantum concept of inflation also includes the premise of a multiverse, and the probability of infinite extensions into both past and future.

Current cosmological discussions don't even mention a singularity.
Whydening Gyre
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
IF "with big IF" this theory happens to be true with no beginning and end of universe. Does that also mean time is illusion/unreal?

Nope. Proves it's real to me...
Just means it's always been there, tickin' away...
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
God created things in such a way that only those who truly seek him WILL find him, so we can believe whatever we want to believe - it's called free will. But a being that lives outside of our reality, who creates our reality, seems more feasible to me than matter creating itself from nothing. There has to be some intelligence there to "think" it into existence. Matter has no intellect - it simply is. When something IS created, it's done in a lab, by intelligent beings - US. And even then, it's only a rearranging of atoms that already existed in another form. But since the existence of a being outside of space/time can be neither proven nor disproved, perhaps a better argument for atheists would be to simply say, "I don't WANT to believe."

Never created itself from nothing. Always WAS something...
Everything IN the universe was created by it, not something outside of it...
vickster339
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
Human's will believe almost anything to not believe that we are being simulated...
Math4us
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015
Finally....the dots are being connected 1 x 1...
Phil DePayne
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2015
Big Bang cosmology is incomplete. General relativity is an approximation of space and time -- singularities described by GR should not be part of a valid model of the universe. Believe what you will, quantum gravity or an act of God, but the BB model as it exists must be wrong.
Math4us
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
...and I mean the premise of the original article...not the miscellaneous blathering posts.. (such as mine)
Phil DePayne
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
BTW, the world isn't flat and the earth revolves around the sun too. Wake up.
gunnqu
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
No Big Bang. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are MIRAGE. All answers in
http://vixra.org/...51v6.pdf
Math4us
3.3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
BTW, the world isn't flat and the earth revolves around the sun too. Wake up.


Phil our posts have crossed in etherland- wasn't 4 u
Math4us
3 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
Never mind i just saw the gunnqu post....
Mimath224
3.5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2015
At the risk of being very basic...I am human! I suspect that most other posters here are too. So we look around us and everything we see begins, grows then dies. When 2 items crash into each other something else begins. We see change all around us and that's where the problem is. We infer that everything has a beginning and an end or at least changes to something else. Even at the Q level we collide 'particles' to produce other states. So it becomes comparitvely easy to infer that the universe had a beginning and will end/change. That, of course, doesn't make it right. I don't have a problem with an infinite universe but I do have a problem with an UNCHANGING one. I view the BB as state that produced by another immediate prior state which had probable result states so that in a strange way both types theory can be correct which is not that different to what Losik posted about BB not completely wrong...smaller BB's.
Perhaps a complex form of Markov Chain? Too simplistic I guess!
L0ND35
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
seems kinda obvious that even in the traditional big bang model it would never "end" either as the singularity formed after the "big crunch" would explode into the big bang as soon as it was formed right, instantaneously? much the same way there is no discernable single point in time at which the universe was at its "furthest" point of spreading out and the time it starts shrinking back in? that is to say, there is no actual point in time between when the universe is expanding and when it is shrinking, as there is no actual point in time between when the universe is shrinking and it is expanding again. simple physics and Xeno's problem of motion.
Math4us
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
Yup...there was something happening before the big bang- it didn't just happen inexplicably. we're getting closer. look through a micro scope, then a telescope, it's all there. Always has been, in some form or another.
bluehigh
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Just means it's always been there, tickin' away...
- WG

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way.
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way.

- Time

dominguezmeza
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
"The theist argue that everything comes from something, therefore there -must- be a God, which gives rise to the question, "who made God?". The whole question is a response to the inherent contradiction in theist argument"
Asking the question "who made God" actually seems to miss the theist argument from first cause. Theists in this are arguing that everything within the universe seems to follow this pattern of causes where nothing arises from nothing. So there would seem to be something outside of the universe, and so outside the laws of the universe, that could act on it as a first cause. A thing outside the universe and its laws that can act on it are attributes of what people have always called God. To move from this to a Christian god is something else, but that isn't what this argument was designed to do. So, the question "then who made god" seems to miss the point that it is claiming something has to exist outside the laws that govern the universe - like the law maker.
mike4ty4
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
Wow, so many crackpot arugments here. But I just want to understand what on earth is being proposed here. Are they saying that there was just no singularity or are they saying the whole picture of the Universe expanding from hot, dense matter is wrong (as if it expanded from a very hot, dense state, that is still a lot like a "Big Bang" even if there is no singularity)?
jonnhere
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
Interesting theory. I am sure a lot more science/peer-review needs to be done before the Big Bang stops being the mainstream view but, all in all, not a bad idea. As for the theist worldview it doesn't really matter: religion/faith in the creator existed before the Big Bang model and will continue once it is (or if it is) gone. The eternal age/state of the universe used to be the standard view in the older church age and it was no problem.
movementiseternal
Feb 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Feb 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonnhere
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Ancients' views (Journal of Cosmology 2010, Vol 9, 2172-2178):
ARISTOTLE--cosmos was in a steady state, eternal, unique and all inclusive. He argued that the universe as a whole was ungenerated as well as indestructible. Most influential view and incorporated into the medieval concept of the universe and through the Renaissance (but theists did not incorporate the past eternal element)
EMPEDOCLES--cosmos was a self-contained sphere passing through cycles of rest and change without beginning or end with very long cycles (in which life arose and disappeared over and over)
THE STOICS--cosmos a gigantic sphere oscillating through cycles of expansion and contraction in the void surrounding it. Invented the term 'ekpyrosis', borrowed by a new cosmological model in 2001
EPICURUS--atoms moved ceaselessly in an infinite void, constantly forming and reforming the world said that "there are infinite worlds"
LUCRETIUS--the universe is spatially infinite/finite in age with infinite worlds
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
I'm saying that for last 20 years.......yours amrit www.fopi.info
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Anybody remember Calabi Yau Manifold?
Here's a video-
https://www.youtu...Re7529Go
Now, take that and imagine it with even just a thousand more variable strings. What do you get?
An approximation of how our Universe might look from the outside...;-)
500 years from now, students will be saying - "man, those people back then thought our Universe was the center of things?!?"
And dogs will still be chasin' their own tails...
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
And as far as the "something from nothing" dogmatics -
why not "nothing from something"?
It's what we all seem to be chasing...
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
in this paper we explain universe is a non created system http://article.sc...3.11.pdf
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
And as far as the "something from nothing" dogmatics -
why not "nothing from something"?

The "...from nothing" never really worked for me. While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not.
"Nothing" is not vacuum, but complete absence of everything - including dimensionality/spacetime. So in effect if "nothing" existed it would have no time and no duration - it would be over in (less than) an instant. The "existence of nothing" is a contradition in terms - and by extension "existence" is a tautology.

(Nothing is like "zero" - it's an abstract. Whereas "something" is not an abstract. So linking these two causally makes very little sense to me)

In effect this means that there is no alternative state to "something" existing (what the "something" manifests as is an entirely different problem)
Galane
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
No beginning and no end, back to the steady state model, but then how to explain the light from most everything in the universe being red shifted?

"the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid" What? They've revived the aether theory again without telling us?

Looks like new ways of retelling some of the oldest theories of the universe.
Melchizedek0001
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
Quite funny comapring to 13th century St.Thomas Acquinas on the beginning of the Universe.
1 )The logical beginning and 2) The physical one; here, he was after (in favor) Aristotle's the eternity of Universe. He also considered that a better theory could replace the noble of "Saint"Ptolomeus system (with the Earth as the centre); 20th cent. A.Eisntein finally comprised all: Aristotle, Ptolomey, Copernicus/Galileo. ps.It seems "scientists" are at playground now
Galane
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
And as far as the "something from nothing" dogmatics -
why not "nothing from something"?

The "...from nothing" never really worked for me. While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not.
"Nothing" is not vacuum, but complete absence of everything - including dimensionality/spacetime.


In other words, you can't fill a room with nothing. And please mop up any vacuum leaks you find on the laboratory floor. ;)
mooster75
2.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
IF "with big IF" this theory happens to be true with no beginning and end of universe. Does that also mean time is illusion/unreal?

Yes. Lunchtime doubly so.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?


This is a good question.
thingumbobesquire
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
The probability that this theory,whether true or false, is relevant to humanity's evolution is vanishingly small.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
And please mop up any vacuum leaks you find on the laboratory floor.

Vacuum leaks are a choking hazard.

Read this (and don't choke while laughing). I don't know if it's true, but it sounds like it might be.
http://www.scifor...s.41446/

Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?

If it goes through 'bang-crunch'-cycles then during the crunch stuff gets compressed into quark gluon plasma (or even further down if there is a 'further down')...and during the 'bang' that crystallizes back into subatomic particles which reform into atoms.
moka
2 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
About the origin of dark matter please see:A New Scenario for Integral Universe Dynamics When Late-time the Polaritons could be Dark Matter Particles?
Stefan Mehedinteanu1
http://viXra.org/abs/1501.0185
androloma
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
How old is the universe? Age is an expression of time. The universe expands. Is time a result of such expansion, or an intrinsic part of what being a being in the universe entails? First define the idea of the word "time" beyond a mere measurement of duration.
Returners
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
How old is the universe? Age is an expression of time. The universe expands. Is time a result of such expansion, or an intrinsic part of what being a being in the universe entails? First define the idea of the word "time" beyond a mere measurement of duration.


Treat "time" as a dimension and plot events in 4-d. This is the only sensible way to think about things over such huge distances and times.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?

If it goes through 'bang-crunch'-cycles then during the crunch stuff gets compressed into quark gluon plasma (or even further down if there is a 'further down')...and during the 'bang' that crystallizes back into subatomic particles which reform into atoms.

Isn't it kinda doing that ALL THE TIME?
I mean, what with all the gravity wells (Black holes, neutron stars, supernovas, etc.) numerously scattered around our Universe, creating turbulence,sucking in matter and then spewing it back out...
That's GOTTA be doing something, right?
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
And as far as the "something from nothing" dogmatics -
why not "nothing from something"?

The "...from nothing" never really worked for me. While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not.
"Nothing" is not vacuum, but complete absence of everything - including dimensionality/spacetime.


In other words, you can't fill a room with nothing. And please mop up any vacuum leaks you find on the laboratory floor. ;)

Doesn't stop us from trying...:-)
Bob_BioLogical
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
It is truly miraculous how God used only a finite amount of time to create a past infinite universe.


Of all the thousands of gods worshiped over the centuries by many different cultures across the globe, which god exactly is it you are referring to?
jscroft
5 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
@losik: Very interested in your commentary here.

You're making a lot of hay out of the "Pioneer Anomaly", but FEA of the spacecrafts' expected thermal emissions produced anisitropic radiation pressure and tracks that lined up exactly with their actual trajectories (see http://en.wikiped..._anomaly ). So there isn't really any anomaly left to claim, and the blueshift you describe from the Pioneer maser is fully explained without resort to new physics.

Does this falsify your idea, or just put it back into the category of "we'll see"?
samueljlawson
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
cbhall56
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
I appreciate the work involved in coming to the conclusion the universe had no beginning. However, Christians already knew this. We just did not know how to mathematically figure it out.
fourinfinities
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
It may take an infinite amount of time to decide whether the universe has been around forever or not.
Moebius
4 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Statistically speaking this theory needs to jump through some major hoops.

If the universe had no beginning it has no end. The odds of us being on the time line where we would see signs of either end to the universe are infinitely small. We see light from over 10 billion years ago and the universe looks different. We are not in a universe that has existed infinitely long or will exist infinitely long. The odds are infinitely huge that if we were in an infinite universe we would be near the middle of the time line and infinitely far from either the past or the future.
rpaul_bauman
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
Physics and Math are TWO DIFFERENT things. There are no points or infinities, and nothing is continuous in Physics, these are concepts in Math. Everything in Physics is discrete including time. Thus any theories that assume any different conditions must be wrong from the very start.
Nashingun
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
Many wish to play smart all the time pretend they know better when all they merely buy are this same bogus ideas, feasts on theories made up by people that "thought" the universe must have started this way or that holding no absolute knowledge of the past, but claims that their understanding is factual or true. Bla bla this, bla bla that. Tomorrow another theory comes out to debunk the other. Games of the fake geniuses.

This all is like selling a bad pharmaceutical product waiting to be discovered useless.
RWT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
I'm glad to see that cosmologists are finally starting to catch on.
vic1248
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
The scientific community has been tirelessly trying to resolve the irreconcilable differences between the Theory of General Relativity and the Quantum Theory by, IMHO, splitting hairs. If we are to run all that tweaking and splitting hairs by Occam's razor, they would fail miserably.

Also, "singularity" is not the only problem between the Theory of General Relativity and the Quantum Theory, the loss of particle/system data, namely the "wave function," at black holes according to Einstein is even a bigger irreconcilable difference.

I believe it's time the scientific community started thinking out of the box of the already fatigued Theoretical Physics.
michael_nieuwenhuizen
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
It's gonna be so much fun to watch the creationist react to this. I'm sure they'll see this as a proof that science is wrong and God exists.
RSingleton14
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
This isn't science. It's speculation dressed in a white lab coat and lab goggles.
El_Nose
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
so the simple question is what is the predicted mass of this graviton and we can empirically test this hypothesis by seeing if the particle it predicts exists.
enochgojongyim
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
I don't understand why using quantum trajectory is superior to using classical geodesic... Is it for the sake of simplicity? Isn't that sort of affirming the consequence?
If truth, then simple. The equation produces simplicity. Therefore, it is truth...?
Someone explain to me, pls.
Traltizer
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
This theory seems to disregard strong evidence that supports the Big Bang including but not limited to:

-The Cosmic Microwave Background (if there was no big bang, what caused this almost uniform signature across the whole of what we consider to be our cosmic horizon?)
-The ever-increasing expansion of the universe: Any of our observations and measurement in redshift appears to completely contradict this model of a spatially finite and eternal universe. Additionally, if the universe indeed had a finite spatial boundary, then ergo something would have to exist on the other side of it. Also, observationally what is causing this increased acceleration if dark energy is simply written off in this "theory"?
- Applying quantum mechanics to macro scale general relativity is tenuous at best: If this theory actually effectively incorporated the two, I'm sure it'd be getting a lot more attention than it is.

A theory that poses more questions than answers is not a theory.
GOD__
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
You were never here.
This never happened.
I did the math and you do not exist.
Nashingun
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Because you were never there to see it happen and all you can do right now is speculate, run your math and calculate till you rot. No one will ever accurately figure the exact origin or beginning of the universe. Those who pretend to find answers and clues are the biggest liars and scumbags we can find today. They'd play smart to outsmart others and get paid with a glamorous Oscars award, only to be corrected and debunk the next day, and that other person that manage to build and debunk the previous theory gets a pay as well... And the cycle goes on and on yet nobody ever gets the actual information of the past. Only for those who worship science that loves this toys for their bragging rights with the knowledge they have that keeps breaking apart everytime.
redshifted
2.8 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015

i.e. We have to get rid of the big bang because it implies physics is not god. (Same with the anthropic principle. So, multiverses.)


Wat?
Nashingun
1.8 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
How many medicine products that have "scientific claims" are later ban and pronounced useless? How does science today actually portray fact from fiction? The most I saw were in Hollywood movies attracting millions and millions of movie goers and fan clubs. Gives us this dire sense of incompetence from today's scientists educational attainment base on bogus knowledge of reality. Start with Evolution theory, the biggest scam of the century.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
This theory seems to disregard strong evidence that supports the Big Bang including but not limited to:

-The Cosmic Microwave Background,if there was no big bang, what caused this almost uniform signature across the whole of what we consider to be our cosmic horizon?

The CMB theory will be 100% scrapped if the James Webb telescope discovers galaxies on the other side of the Primordial Gas Cloud.

-The ever-increasing expansion of the universe: Any of our observations and measurement in redshift appears to completely contradict this model of a spatially finite and eternal universe.

The present calculation for redshift will be totally scrapped because it is based on a 13.7 Gyr limit within the Integral by which redshift calculations are made. The distance between intervals of redshifting shrinks the closer the calculation is made to the limit of 13.7 because redshifting is assumed not to be a constant.
jonnhere
2 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
It is truly miraculous how God used only a finite amount of time to create a past infinite universe.


Of all the thousands of gods worshiped over the centuries by many different cultures across the globe, which god exactly is it you are referring to?


The one he feels a connection to of course. And he's allowed to believe it as much as a person is allowed to believe that 75% of the matter in the universe is completely undetectable other than an effect it is claimed to be having, or that all of the matter in the universe was once "a point".

Better take a look at what YOU think is possible before judging what someone else does.


Haha! Burn. Also, yes.
DonGateley
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015


Instead we can look at how fast life was established on Earth, which means it is easy and/or often repeated attempts, and hence life should be common.


But highly evolved complex life such as we see depends on a very lengthy string of conducive events and conditions that can't be expected to be so common. Potentially even unique when coupled with the anthropic principle and the possibility of a quantum landscape.
Boilerplate
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
Just like that we are going to toss a theory that has made accurate predictions for many years now? As one comment above noted, Wilson and Penzias verified the cosmic background radiation that was predicted by the the Big Bang Theory. Are all the good physicists who have been working with this theory for years wrong? A little perspective is called for.
Losik
Feb 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TKO
3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
YES, and NO
It is akin to saying which popcorn popped first. You would have to be there to see it. Instead - looking back we can only say that a lot of corn popped. The schematic (drawing) uses a PAN diagram (2 dimensional thinking). In space of course we have 3 dimensions. PLS open color chart of elements. In the first round of bangs, gasses formed simple elements. As Suns got hotter more complex items. Very large suns (lots of heat) created Iron, Gold, etc. These are the heavy metals. Think of it as many little bangs, rest; bigger bangs, rest; and then even bigger bangs. Eventually you get to now, where Suns start and die off all of the time. *Adding Physics Humor * Let us go up into a space orbit and see how far popcorn could fly in zero gravity.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
I was always of the view that the Big Bang was an illusion. Similar to looking down railway tracks to see them converge at one point in the distance.

If space is expanding in all directions and at an expanding rate this sounds more like there is a constant creation of new space coming from every point in space. This would look exactly like everything is flying apart in an ever increasing pace and eventually at some distance it would be expanding faster than the speed of light and the continuing expansion would look like a microwave background radiation due to the redshift of the negative event horizon ... the place where light sources are just about to travel away from us at faster than the speed of light and become invisible to us.
twinghost
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
oh no i can see it now, all the crazy religious nuts "science doesnt have a clue its always changing its mind, see even by science the big bang doesnt exist anymore, god is all things" lol
mworkmansr
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
Is this the Age of Bltherers?
We invent the graviton? Sounds like phlogiston and aether.
Physicists are starting to sound like economists and sociologists.
jackjump
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
Fred Hoyle had a theory of Continuous Creation that was a leading contender back before the Big Bang theory. This theory would seem to require a similar injection of matter and energy on a continuous basis to get around entropy (maybe not, I'm just going by my initial impression). Of course Hoyle couldn't explain why we didn't see the new matter and energy. Perhaps he was just a step away from hypothesizing dark energy and matter when he got blown out of the water by the Big Bang theory.
Al1337
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
A much more basic set of questions involves the continued existence of hydrogen. In an infinite universe, hydrogen would have been gone a long time ago. My old friend John Dobson (rest in peace) was a big critic of the big bang, but I could never get an explanation out of him about the regenerative nature of the matter that we see everywhere.
ForConsideration
3 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. So much passion and quite often myopia (it's almost like politics at times). It seems like one of those puzzles where a certain piece may 'fit' perfectly, but the more you look at it, you know that it just isn't right.

It's like Pringles... is it remotely possible that they could come up with a better chip someday? Probably not. But if I don't at least allow myself to consider such a preposterous suggestion, I miss out on the chance to have something even better than a Pringle. Nirvana...

Science is discovery and re-discovery. Love it when a new (or recycled) idea stirs the pot a little. It makes us work harder to understand our own views. It also bumps my stock in Advil.

And yes, I was totally joking about Pringles. LOL... like someone could ever come up with a better chip... laughable!

Seriously, I must say that it is refreshing to see mostly respectful conversation on such a controversial topic.
norrie
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
Actually, the theists argue that every NATURAL thing comes from something. But the laws of physics and nature to not apply to something outside of those systems.

Therefore, since there must be a beginning, the Thing That Has No Cause must be something completely unlike anything else that we know of, and must be OUTSIDE of the whole system, and not subject to its laws.

Unless you explain why God would be the only thing that can exist without a cause, everything can exist without God.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
Relativity equations are apparently still considered the holy grail by physicists who like to write stuff. But Einstein once doctored those equations to satisfy his static universe theory, which was of course false, so while the concept of relativity has been proved and substantiated, extending the equations, as they are doing to Big Bang theory, is going too far, IMO. That just leads to more false assumptions.

The hydrogen atom is smaller than it was at the time of creation. That means that probably everything is shrinking all the time, but this being a quantized reality, we can assume that this is a process that will continue until some quantum threshold is attained, at which point everything unravels and becomes nothing again in short order. All the while, the universe continues to create at the periphery, where space, time and matter begin. These processes continue.

The universe had a beginning. It is untenable to believe otherwise. Ocham's razor.
TKO
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
This FISH BEING BORN video - is a bit similar - except of course - there are no glass walls to stop direction of anything in space ... https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=Al1GO9ZJEYw
hoosker
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
This is exactly why Brian Williams took a few days off... to help these guys with this model.
russelljbarry15
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
I want to see the equations. Where are they. I will not get too excited, I have seen this before.
jfkrll
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
At the beginning, there was nothing; no space, no time. As such, I find it entirely plausible that there could be an effect without a cause. Perhaps both happened at the same time, the effect being the quantum fluctuations and the cause being that such fluctuations had a probability greater than zero. This makes sense to me as, in the case of nonexistence -- the "nothing" that was the truth prior to the quantum fluctuation, any existence would have been the end of the nothing; when considering all the possible forms of "something," it seems > 0 probability -- frankly, highly probable -- that something would happen.

Now someone PLEASE tell me they understand what I've written.
meginprogress
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
Novice here, with a novice question. Does this theory eliminate dark matter or re-purpose it?

Many thanks in advance for an answer.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Now someone PLEASE tell me they understand what I've written.
Do you understand "redshift"?
dtlee999
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
If there no begining then there is no end. Everything just change from one state to another. I like this concept a lot.
rpaul_bauman
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
Not too bad jfkril. Maybe a little too fast. If you start with nothing, nothing can happen. So change it very little , start with nothing that allows unused time to accumulate but where the amount of unused time accumulated is zero. This is close to nothing. Then go from there.
whitefang0205
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
I need more info!!! My mind is going crazy right now. Can anybody link me a more in depth article?
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
Sounds interesting. Until you apply basic common sense.

If the universe has always been here, what changed about 13 billion years ago to have the stars suddenly start forming? From observations of current stars, understanding of how they form and function and the concentrations of heavy elements in the observable universe, that's a pretty safe number for when stars actually started forming. The Big Bang theory provides a simple explanation for this, as that is when particles slowed down enough to start being drawn together.
rpaul_bauman
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
And Benni; redshift thought to be from galaxies moving away is from photons aging. All of physics is 10 time simpler that way. And the math is identical, you can not tell the differences in the math.
gardotd426
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
Yeah, I'm a novice as far as hard science goes (my degree is in political science), but I've always been fascinated by physics and general relativity, and I certainly understand more than the average American, but my knowledge of quantum mechanics is a tad less than standard model physics, so I'm just curious about something. If their model turned out to be correct, then what in the hell is causing redshift? And why would essentially every single bit of observational (and other) evidence we have almost exclusively point to an expanding universe, if we actually are in a steady-state one? And would this model essentially replace general relativity, or just supplement it? Because to me, it seems that GR pretty much nails things like gravitational lensing among other things. Again, I'm a novice, but I'd really like someone to reconcile redshifting with this new potential model.
Losik
Feb 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Neoheurist
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
I like where the thinking is going - Flugenics (fluid-genesis) covers the subject more completely

flugenics.blogspot.com/2014/08/flugenics-fractional-overview.html
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
" what changed about 13 billion years ago to have the stars suddenly start forming

Well, nothing, they always were there."

No. We know that stars have a life cycle. They form, burn through fuel and form elements through fusion and eventually run out of fuel and "die" in one of several ways. This is observed and fairly predictable. If stars have been around an infinite amount of time, all fuel would be used up unless there were an infinite amount of fuel, which of course, would have produced an infinite amount of heavy elements, etc. Unless they can show that something changed 13 billion years ago (or at least posit a good guess at what might have) then this is just another math magic trick. The world is full of them.
TKO
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
TKO THEORY - Multiple "popcorn" explosions, not one big bang
Before mass ... imagine gas atoms floating in space
STEP 1 : Due to minute gravity pull, They start to create cloud formations, gaining mass here and there. Not in one location, but many locations in space.
STEP 2: Particles in larger gasses start bumping into each other to create mass.
STEP 3: E=Mc2 mass and energy for a very small Sun, most probably unstable, which explodes Heat and mass creates a few new elements.
NOTE - Now let us also imagine Multiple clouds in space all doing this like fish giving birth in the ocean. Creating multiple "larger and larger popcorn explosions in space" and eventually you get the periodic table, as well as the messy universe we live in.
LET US START WITH THE MATH
STEP 1 : Define a single Three Dimensional Cloud
http://kiwi DOT atmos DOT colostate DOT edu/pubs/joon-hee-tech_report.pdf
I will pause here so you can have time to review.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
And Benni; redshift thought to be from galaxies moving away is from photons aging. All of physics is 10 time simpler that way. And the math is identical, you can not tell the differences in the math.

Do you know how "redshift" is calculated?
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
"To restate, couldn't singularity based cycles of expansion and contraction still be part of a universe that has existed forever?"

It could, but that doesn't eliminate the problem that the math breaks down at the singularity. The whole point is that the current math models can't explain the observable universe, so the observable universe must be altered to fit the math. It seems to be a common trend by people who call themselves scientists now-a-days.
Losik
Feb 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TKO
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
krokodil_dundee_33 - YES _ In part
If you look out at an existing nebula there is a TON of activity, expanding and contracting, new and dieing, the nebula itself is a rather large "cloud" with lots of gas, lots of solids.

going back the small popcorn theory - imagine exploding popcorn at the very beginning, particles going in all directions - with like sized particles attracting to similar or larger objects ...
michael_c_clark_52
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
TOE=MCC ∞ rational theory of everything is the only way it can be. random theory has no frame of reference to Quantify to an absolute certainty
michael_c_clark_52
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
TOE=MCC ∞ rational theory of everything is the only way it can be. random theory has no frame of reference to Quantify to an absolute certainty
joshualwilson
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
" 'The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,' Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org."

Hmmm, that sounds like something which would occur outside the natural order of things- like something supernatural. Well, science is finally going somewhere!

michael_c_clark_52
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
TOE=MCC ∞ rational theory of everything is the only way it can be. random theory has no frame of reference to Quantify to an absolute certainty
keynorth03
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
I'm not a scientist, here are some borrowed thoughts from R.C. Sproul and K. Mathison, "Not A Chance-God, Science, and the Revolt against Reason." "Origin of the Cosmos: 4 Options: 1.The cosmos is an illusion-it doesn't exist; 2.The cosmos is self-existent, and eternal; 3.The cosmos is self-created; 4.The cosmos is created by something that is self-created. Options 1 & 3 can easily be eliminated (self-creation is logically impossible). If the cosmos is self-existent, is EACH PART of the cosmos self-existent or is SOME PART self-existent and produces/causes the other parts? I know that I'm not self-existent, neither is my watch. We were brought into existence, we're derived, dependent, contingent. If then ONE (more?) PART(s) of the universe is self-existent and has the power of being within itself so it can generate lesser levels of existent reality, then we have attributed to this mysterious being-within-the-universe the attributes of a transcendent God. A rose by any other name...."
michael_c_clark_52
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
TOE=MCC ∞ rational theory of everything is the only way it can be. random theory has no frame of reference to Quantify to an absolute certainty
mburger
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Anything..... Give me anything but that idiotic big bang crap.... how anyone over 5 years old could take that seriously is simply amazing. Scientists should get up every morning and go to the mirror and ask the rarely asked question, "What is my relationship with Reality" most (no all of us) who have ever done came away with the honest answer. "I do not have a relationship with reality." Get over it, we live in a time of disconnectedness a society without a relationship with reality/

I am pleased as well to see the authors credit David Bohm as their inspiration for this effort. Good on you Canadian Prairie boys!!! Stone Megalith Builders of Old.... they used their golden brain glands, pituitary and pineal (brain boosting bandwidth DMT) and we do not.
TopCat22
not rated yet Feb 10, 2015
Dark Energy and Dark Mater are the properties of space that are being created by the expansion of space. Space and its contents are not being rarefied by the accelerating expansion of the cosmos. The cosmos is growing and getting bigger and the dark mater and dark energy are the precursors of regular mater and regular energy we are more familiar with.

The cosmos is very uniform from our perspective. This can be explained by new space and new mater and new energy coming into being everywhere in space. As more space exists between two farther points the speed that they are moving away from the expansion increases in an accelerating pace till at more than 13.5 billion light years away the light is moving faster than the speed of light and cannot be seen. What we see as the microwave background radiation is just the red shifted light of the cosmos just before it hit the speed of light and becomes invisible. The universe is infinite and has no beginning in time or place.
littleturkey01
2 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
Baseline

'Sigh yet another who can not understand that atheism does not require an explanation of how it all began or a requirement to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theist.'

Just because pseudo skeptics always resort to saying such things as, 'the burden of proof for the existence of God lays completely on the shoulders of the theists' does not make it so. That is a typical pseudo skeptic deflection of questions asked of which they have no idea how to answer.

russell_russell
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
The likelihood of nothing (an empty set) is zero.
All physicists and mathematicians will recognize this in any of the forms (norms) written.

That provides you a setting(s) for an event and an event.

The primitive notion here is an empty set.

mburger
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
Anything..... Give me anything but that idiotic big bang crap.... how anyone over 5 years old could take that seriously is simply amazing. Scientists should get up every morning and go to the mirror and ask the rarely asked question, "What is my relationship with Reality" most (no all of us) who have ever done came away with the honest answer. "I do not have a relationship with reality." Get over it, we live in a time of disconnectedness a society without a relationship with reality/

I am pleased as well to see the authors credit David Bohm as their inspiration for this effort. Good on you Canadian Prairie boys!!! Stone Megalith Builders of Old.... they used their golden brain glands, pituitary and pineal (brain boosting bandwidth DMT) and we do not.
mburger
1 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
Anything..... Give me anything but that idiotic big bang crap.... how anyone over 5 years old could take that seriously is simply amazing. Scientists should get up every morning and go to the mirror and ask the rarely asked question, "What is my relationship with Reality" most (no, all of us) who have ever done this came away with the honest answer. "I do not have a relationship with reality."

Get over it, we live in a time of disconnectedness a society without a relationship with reality/

I am pleased as well to see the authors credit David Bohm as their inspiration for this effort. Good on you Canadian Prairie boys!!! Stone Megalith Builders of Old.... they used their golden brain glands, pituitary and pineal (brain boosting bandwidth DMT) and we do not.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
@antialias_physorg:
The "...from nothing" never really worked for me. While "something" has existence, "nothing" does not.
"Nothing" is not vacuum, but complete absence of everything - including dimensionality/spacetime. So in effect if "nothing" existed it would have no time and no duration - it would be over in (less than) an instant. The "existence of nothing" is a contradition in terms - and by extension "existence" is a tautology.

(Nothing is like "zero" - it's an abstract. Whereas "something" is not an abstract. So linking these two causally makes very little sense to me)

In effect this means that there is no alternative state to "something" existing (what the "something" manifests as is an entirely different problem)
Well said! You have succinctly put your finger right on the causal non sequitur between 'nothing' and 'something' in physical arguments re 'beginnings'. Cheers!
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
@Whydening Gyre:
Anybody remember Calabi Yau Manifold?
Here's a video-
https://www.youtu...Re7529Go
Now, take that and imagine it with even just a thousand more variable strings. What do you get?
An approximation of how our Universe might look from the outside...;-)
500 years from now, students will be saying - "man, those people back then thought our Universe was the center of things?!?"
And dogs will still be chasin' their own tails...
There is no 'outside' in eternal infinite all-inclusive 'universal set' of phenomena/state 'potential' which is 'processing' and 'cycling' ceaselessly though all local/collective epochs and states of possible realizations/manifestations of physically effective features and dynamics. So that Calabi-Yau and other 'representations of 'universal shapes/curvatures/topologies' etc are actually misleading because they are 'finite' possible 'subsets' of dynamical processes within any particular local volume/epoch. Cheers.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
@ppnlppnl:
Um, if the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't all the hydrogen been burned?
Because there is constant recycling via energy/plasma jets of 'deconstructed matter' from the dynamical evolutions and processes at every scale. On large scales like neutron stars, black holes/quasars etc etc. So Hydrogen is being regenerated in polar jets of deconstructed heavier atoms produced in novas/supernovas etc.

Why, even at the quantum scales, there is energy-space perturbations (high energy content photons/gamma rays etc) interacting and forming 'particle pairs' of Electron-Posiron matter. And of course, the latter may at some other place/epoch interact to Annihilate themselves back to gamma ray photonic energy again!

It never stops. What we are observing 'locally/now' in 'observable volume' is merely one 'present' epoch of 'states' that represents one such epoch/stages of an infinite/eternal series of construction/deconstruction epoch/stages. Cheers.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
@Traltizer:
-The Cosmic Microwave Background (if there was no big bang, what caused this almost uniform signature across the whole of what we consider to be our cosmic horizon?)
Consider an infinite volume with eternal processes going on within it and all around any chosen 'observable volume' such as 'ours'. Over the epochs of radiation from every direction incoming/outgoing to/from 'our' volume would have 'averaged out' base 'flux' of all sorts of radiation contributing to what we 'see' in any chosen part of the radiation spectrum. The combined effects of local (in our volume) and far sourced radiation would give the observed spectrum irrespective of BBang etc 'beginnings/finite' universal volume/process hypoheses.
A theory that poses more questions than answers is not a theory.
Apt description of BBang etc. hypotheses! Hence mainstream unease with what's been claimed for BBang etc to date; especially inflation/expansion 'interpretations' of CMB data. Cheers.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2015
@Al1337:
A much more basic set of questions involves the continued existence of hydrogen. In an infinite universe, hydrogen would have been gone a long time ago. My old friend John Dobson (rest in peace) was a big critic of the big bang, but I could never get an explanation out of him about the regenerative nature of the matter that we see everywhere.
hat's because everyone was missing the obvious re energy-matter 'recycling processes' of pair production/annihilation (quantum scale) and polar jets deconstruction/reconstruction (macro scales). Please see my above posts addressed @ppnlppnl and @Traltizer for more info. Cheers.
conradg
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2015
"Unless you explain why God would be the only thing that can exist without a cause, everything can exist without God."

Well, for one, you could define God as "that from which everything arises." That solves the philosophical/rational problem. One can then say that God's source is God, by definition.

But that's probably not satisfying, and obviously a circular argument. Which is not to say it's a false argument however. It makes perfect sense to say that reality is circular in nature.

It goes back to the ancient argument that everything is made or comes from "one thing" or even "oneness". Advaita, for example, means "not two". It also means "beyond two".

Thales' proposition that everything is made of water as the essential element doesn't seem to make much sense empirically, unless "water" is taken to be symbolic. Of what? The most sensible proposition is "consciousness", since that's a common symbolic usage of water. The "ocean of consciousness" as the primal source.
cimino_antonio
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
I believe that our part of the universe has a finite period, while the universe it is a small part off may have existed forever, whatever is the highest denominator is forever, all other things have a finite period, and that includes the universe we are able to see. I believe that all things within our universe are in a oval shell which keeps all things we know within it. I believe that the outer shell is made up of material which pushes all a matter within away from it. Thus the big bang and then the shrinking. Nothing within our universe can ever destroy it, it is outside this shell which is unknown that could one day destroy it all. Anyway thats my theory. If you wish to know more I am quite happy to answer questions.
polley_richard
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
Our equations will always be incomplete if life itself is not included in the variables. this why the observer effect occurs and why things appear elegantly serendipitous...sadly, we don't know much about life, we know a lot about killing. Nevertheless, this slightly clearer insight will generate new shows on tv akin to sheldon's big bang...sadly.
polley_richard
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
What is the rarest thing in the universe? the second rarest? what has a single temperature tri-point and is considered an exception to the law of physics or it breaks the laws of physics-depending on perspective. Remember, we are all on this journey together right now-so be extra nice...believe me, it will pay off big time later.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
I I believe that all things within our universe are in a oval shell which keeps all things we know within it.
You & Enstein seem to have a similar conclusion, copied below is a statement directly from his General Relativity:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.
someone11235813
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
orti: ...one is 100B to 200B galaxies out there, and each contains billions and even trillions of stars. All of the recent planet findings have been in our galaxy alone, only looking at ~150,000 stars of the ~300,000,000,000 in the milky way.


You assume without any justification at all, that the chance of intelligent (or even not intelligent) life like ours is automatically maybe billions or 100's of billions one. And while that may be correct, it may also be correct that the chance is more like 100's of billions of trillions to one against. I'm not saying it is either, the fact is we do not know. And until we at least actually find solid evidence of some form of life that has formed elsewhere (life being defined as a self replicating object that introduces errors that can be subjected to natural selection) then we just do not know. However you fall into the trap that is as bad as any creationist nonsense by making the 'how could there not be life with so many stars'
HughHoney
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2015
Can somebody help me out please? I'm not really good with this stuff but I'm attempting to understand it. I see that this theory contains "elements" of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Is this a theory competing with string theory for unification or is this a missing piece of the puzzle for string theory since it contains answers for dark matter/energy also? Thanks.
CharlesRKiss
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015
Finally, someone I can read who I agree could be on the right track. Nice to see something different finally, than "The Big Bang" that never happened.
CharlesRKiss
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
I have this question (if anyone remains here):

Presume an infinite time frame. Presume it can be called a frame.

What would be the difference between a causal multiverse (the type we've all read about in QM) and this "Presumed Infinite Time Frame, (all caps)" where EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY HAPPENED?

Now, suppose the connectedness is not linear as we imagine in QM with an undetermined future, but distributed in an entanglement that is orderly (chaos, functions, higher math not discovered yet, etc) but not static; and it's the connections that are changing, ie. the correspondences between all possible events (outcomes). etc. and free will.

[I could just go on; but I'll stop here]

Do you understand this topology? Do I?? lol. How is it any different than the splitting linear causal multiverse of QM?

[I don't think it is]

This is more a field of events, where "time's arrow" isn't related to anything that hasn't already happened before (that's all I can say about it).
duran1948
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
i'am here !!!! all of are so wrong about the univ. first finally u said something right!! there no beginning or end an if want to get a response try using something other than radio waves try use atoms of what your sun is made of I'm trying to use your own words which I find it difficult to do to write in your simple laptop is trying !!! remember it all begins gravity!!!!!!!!! if try to understand the force then u might will able to talk to us
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015

The hydrogen atom is smaller than it was at the time of creation.

You have a reference for that statement?
conradg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
"A Christian doesn't believe that a blue eight armed god exists and absolutely would require a Hindu to carry the burden of proof to convince them otherwise.

So both the Christian and atheist are skeptics with regards to the non-Christian world religions, with the latter taking their disbelief one religion further."

However, a Hindu will say that all Gods exist, as many as there are people, even one or more for each person, including the Christian. So while monotheism might require atheism towards other Gods, polytheism does not.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
The likelihood of nothing (an empty set) is zero.
All physicists and mathematicians will recognize this in any of the forms (norms) written.

That provides you a setting(s) for an event and an event.

The primitive notion here is an empty set.

But the CONCEPT of one is priceless...
CharlesRKiss
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
What I mean by "difference" is in the likelihood (based on observations) of one paradigm existing over the other; which I think is zero.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
@Whydening Gyre:
Anybody remember Calabi Yau Manifold?
Here's a video-
https://www.youtu...Re7529Go
Now, take that and imagine it with even just a thousand more variable strings. What do you get?
An approximation of how our Universe might look from the outside...;-)
500 years from now, students will be saying - "man, those people back then thought our Universe was the center of things?!?"
And dogs will still be chasin' their own tails...
So that Calabi-Yau and other 'representations of 'universal shapes/curvatures/topologies' etc are actually misleading because they are 'finite' possible 'subsets' of dynamical processes within any particular local volume/epoch. Cheers.

Notice how I used the word "approximation"...
"Your inside is out and your outside is in..." - Beatles.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
It's strange that atheists keep arguing against religion instead of god. Stranger still is the fact that they always find people to fall into that trap.

To actually address the subject though… I see many people here trying to whistle past the graveyard that is infinity. The claim seems to be that heavy elements are broken back down into quarks, ejected back into space, which then reform into basic atoms of hydrogen (amongst other things, I'm sure.) Have you guys got any scientific research to back any of that up?

And let us not forget the other two words that you are avoiding… Black Hole. These are real. They have mass. They have temperature. They are the singularity problem of the Big Bang sitting right in front of us, not simply theoretically 14 billion years ago. Along with the problem of figuring out how stars have infinite fuel (and why older stars have a different physical make up) you need to answer why the universe isn't just one big Black Hole.
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
Absolutely hysterical. "Black holes" as currently described require the breakdown of the laws of physics and chemistry. Furthermore they have never been observed or experimentally confirmed. So at this point they remain science fiction.
It is more likely that the areas called "black holes" are dense plasmoids. The classic spiral galaxy formation has been created in the laboratory by plasma physicists. The driving force is electromagnetic, not gravity. Not only does this occur in keeping with the laws of physics it can be experimentally confirmed and is consistent with observational data.
For the cutting edge research in cosmology visit the Electric Universe Conference 2014 and also go to the "Primer Fields". This work consists of ground breaking research with magnetic fields by plasma physicists and gives solid evidence that the driving force behind the formation of all matter is electromagnetic. If there was ever a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" this is it.
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
Absolutely hysterical. "Black holes" as currently described require the breakdown of the laws of physics and chemistry. Furthermore they have never been observed or experimentally confirmed. So at this point they remain science fiction.
It is more likely that the areas called "black holes" are dense plasmoids. The classic spiral galaxy formation has been created in the laboratory by plasma physicists. The driving force is electromagnetic, not gravity. Not only does this occur in keeping with the laws of physics it can be experimentally confirmed and is consistent with observational data.
For the cutting edge research in cosmology visit the Electric Universe Conference 2014 and also go to the "Primer Fields". This work consists of ground breaking research with magnetic fields by plasma physicists and gives solid evidence that the driving force behind the formation of all matter is electromagnetic. If there was ever a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" this is it.
kling005
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
We hypothesize these singularities by projecting mathematical equations until they break. The big problem with this technique is that at the event horizon, everything changes and for that reason alone the equations no longer apply.

We have no idea what happens at that point, only a mathematical hypothesis. It has never been tested, and other than the curvature of space outside the event horizon has never been and can not be measured.

I have been waiting for equations to explain it without the hypothetical singularity concept. No length, width, depth, time does not exist.

Let the arguments begin. I sincerely hope more people look beyond singularities, dark matter, dark energy - It is a good thing to challenge the status qua


That's what this paper does.
mburger
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
My browser hung on the submit button and I accidently posted same three times. My apologies.
mburger
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
It seem science is going through some kind of a renaissance with a lot of new and refreshing work going on. My own laboratory experiments has been producing large gold beads from silica dioxide artificial seed ores. Google: vimeo blue eagle gold making technology and here we share the gold making lab work video with modified kitchen microwave ovens.

How sweet that in the same year we exonerate the alchemists and blow up the big bang to boot.... I call that progress.
cloudy skies
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
I'm just watching this post as an interested observer. The intricacies of the science I don't understand, the need to be 'heard' I do.
An interesting debate.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
What would be the difference between a causal multiverse (the type we've all read about in QM) and this "Presumed Infinite Time Frame, (all caps)" where EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY HAPPENED?

Connection. Multiverses are disconnected while a causal universe with everything already having happened in the past those happenings would influence what future happenings turn out as.

Now, suppose the connectedness is not linear as we imagine in QM with an undetermined future, but distributed in an entanglement that is orderly (chaos, functions, higher math not discovered yet, etc) but not static; and it's the connections that are changing, ie. the correspondences between all possible events (outcomes). etc. and free will.

Whut?
mburger
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
I'm just watching this post as an interested observer. The intricacies of the science I don't understand, the need to be 'heard' I do.
An interesting debate.


Cloudy Skies.... I guess the point is that the skies are finally clearing :)
wireshark
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
From Genesis:

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the waters. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Dark matter upon the quantum fluid? ;)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2015
The claim seems to be that heavy elements are broken back down into quarks, ejected back into space, which then reform into basic atoms of hydrogen (amongst other things, I'm sure.) Have you guys got any scientific research to back any of that up?

No....Oh, unless you mean the thousands of terrabytes of data from all collider experiments, ever? Then yes.

Along with the problem of figuring out how stars have infinite fuel

Inifinite fuel? Never read anyone who make that claim.
mike_neagle
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
Although it seems very exciting to hear that we are coming up with a way to eliminate the big bang, I believe that everything has a beginning and an end. However I predict that we will end up with a universe that is much older than previously thought. I also believe that multi verses is going to be key to solving the final word on this matter. We can only see as far as light in time takes to get to us. This alone means we cannot assume that the age of our universe is what we imagine it to be but more probably much older and that cosmic rays that we think are everything are going to multiply to a much higher number as well as the dark matters and energies involved are going to be much higher in quantity than previously thought. The simpler the theory the more incomplete it will prove to be. I do believe that this is only the beginning of the problem and that we will find signals that we have to look further than we have ever before to reach a better explanation.
manuel_alfonseca
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
I have a question about equation (2) in page (2) of the paper in arXiv:

The authors offer their first quantum correction term as an alternative to dark energy. If I understand it correctly, they are proposing that this term substitutes the second term in Friedman equation (Lambda.c^2/3). To justify it, they assert (correctly) that the value of Lambda must be about 10^-123 in Planck units or 10^-52 m^-2. Then they compute the value of their replacement term (Lambda_Q) in equations (5) and (6) to be about 10^-123 in Planck units or 10^-52 m^-2. Impressive! But what happened to the multiplier c^2/3? The term they are trying to replace is not equal to Lambda, but to (Lambda.c^2/3). So the replacing term should be much larger (about 10^-32) and Lambda_Q cannot fulfil that role.

Am I mistaken? Where?
hcnap
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
All I can think of as an ordinary layman is that we have a long long way to go in finding the origin of the universe!!!
Losik
Feb 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TKO
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
TKO THEORY
Clouds of gas and Popcorn reactions as discussed above.
-
Let me paint two images for you - brief descriptions below
-
Look at a map of the USA, put Pins where all of the Capital cities are (on a clear background)
Take away the map, and leave the pins in place. Nothing is equally distant, nothing really has a pattern. Now Add millions of miles between dots, and you get cloud pockets of gas in space. Add 3D - scattering dots in space.
-
Go to any forest, and create 100 meter square, measure mass of all trees, compare that mass to the space in the square and you will get a ratio. Now go to a desert and do this with cactus, to the ocean with fish, and into the air with a flock of birds, to Africa with a herd of antelope... While the mass to space equation stays the same, the results and ratios will be quite different. Now expand this my millions of miles in space. You get different sized nebula, gasses, hard objects etc.
-
Channe
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Back in 1999, when I was 19, I started asking myself what is the smallest size that can't be cut in half, or the shortest amount of time that can't be divided. I realized then that the Universe has always existed (a skewed form of Zeno's Paradox). Because if at any point the Universe was only .05 seconds old and .05 inches long, there was a time it was .005 seconds old and .005 inches long. It went on forever - and therefore, has always existed. In this case, both time and distance and space and matter all are eternal.
whozit
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
I wonder about the psychological aspects of the Big Bang debate; how it relates to the apparent human need to explain the unknown, even if the "explanation" is some sort of hand-waving along the lines of "God made it, and He is eternal and it is forbidden to doubt that." Even many atheists seem to have a need to explain everything, and simply can not accept an idea like the Big Bang. If they can not know what happened before the BB, then the BB can not have happened.

Granted, the idea of the universe - time, space, all of it - blasting out of some unknowable nothing is not the most satisfying notion, but, IMO, the idea of an eternal or infinite universe is just as absurd as one created by some eternal or infinite being(s).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
Because if at any point the Universe was only .05 seconds old and .05 inches long, there was a time it was .005 seconds old and .005 inches long. It went on forever - and therefore, has always existed.

Well, if you do the math on Zeno's paradox you will find that the arrow will hit the tortoise (or Achilles will catch the tortoise).
Subdividing is a abstract action. That something can be subdivided (in the mind) doesn't mean it can be subdivided in reality. (And vice versa - that we think of something as the smalles subdivision - that's where the word Atom comes from BTW - doesn't mean it can't be split)

But the major problem with that kind of thinking is that it posits space separate from time. There's a reason why physicists call it spacetime (and it's not because they are too lazy to say "space and time") . And all our measurements (re. Relativity) confirm that the two are intimately related.
Shootist
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
Human's will believe almost anything to not believe that we are being simulated...


Boolean logic suggests that a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2015
Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written is to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.

There is a small horde of astrophysicists who are just beginning to sound the alarm bells that the James Webb telescope with its infrared spectrometry, will in just a few years hence take a mask off a universe heretofore unimagined. Cosmology will go through a rebirth when the JWT takes pictures of galaxies on the other side of that Primordial gas.

When the mystique of that so-called Primordial Gas Cloud is relegated to the ashbin of cosmological history, then some serious cosmology can begin anew. Present day redshift calculations will be totally scrapped because the 13.7 Gyr limit used in the Redshift Integral calculation will become an unknown quantity. When the age of the universe becomes an unknown quantity it will be impossible to calculate "redshift" for anything.

Faxanadu
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
We are all just part of a big video game being played by an unusually adept 12 year old kid. Everything we see, hear, and do is all part of a digital display. We can't understand our universe because we are all 2 dimensional forms living in a flat screen. The universe is like the original Mario Bros. game. If you walk off one side of the screen, you end up on the other. :P How's that for a scientific explanation? j/k But seriously, a higher power may exist and the age of the universe may be infinite going in both directions.... Nonetheless, religion is still bullshit. Peace.
Losik
Feb 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
captainhigley
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
A small group of astronomers have maintained, rightly, for years that quasars are present in local galaxies and not incredible distances away based on their red shift.

The Big Bang Theory completely ignores the fact that all stars and galaxies have red shift due to their gravitational masses. Galaxies have been identified galaxy pairs that are connected by filaments of stars and have quasars embedded in the galactic edges. The galaxies have low but different redshifts and the two quasars have very high and different red shifts. If we recognize that gravity cause red shifts, these bodies can be well understood based on their masses.

The Big Bang Theory has been kludged and repaired over the years such that it is a joke. In addition, black holes have been described 5 or 7 different ways and none match up with real observations. Big Bang pproponents gloss over these discrepancies are minor and, pretend that black holes exist, as some kind of average of unworkable models.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
The claim seems to be that heavy elements are broken back down into quarks, ejected back into space, which then reform into basic atoms of hydrogen (amongst other things, I'm sure.) Have you guys got any scientific research to back any of that up?

No....Oh, unless you mean the thousands of terrabytes of data from all collider experiments, ever? Then yes.


Colliders are one thing. Showing it happens naturally in the universe at the same rate that all stars are burning hydrogen is another.

Along with the problem of figuring out how stars have infinite fuel

Inifinite fuel? Never read anyone who make that claim.


Yes, they did. If the universe is infinitely old, and stars have been around forever (see previous posts) then there must be infinite fuel for those stars, or, something must be creating it at an equal or greater rate than it is being used.
jim_zhao_cc
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
Universe is infinite - no beginning or end, and no boundaries. Mathematical approve: If there were the beginning, then the day before that beginning day was also part of universe, and so on... If there were a boundary, the space outside the boundary is also part of the universe,... It is that simple. Jim Zhao .
jim_zhao_cc
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
Universe is infinite - no beginning or end, and no boundaries. Mathematical approve: If there were the beginning, then the day before that beginning day was also part of universe, and so on... If there were a boundary, the space outside the boundary is also part of the universe,... It is that simple. What we can observe is a almost infinite small point of universe. We can not analysis the sea by study a drip of water.
Jim Zhao .
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
Colliders are one thing. Showing it happens naturally in the universe at the same rate that all stars are burning hydrogen is another.

Huh? where do you get the "at the same rate as stars are burning hydrogen" from? Never heard that one before.

Colliders simultate the conditions (energy densities) shortly after the Big bang. And from that we know that under such energetic conditions atomic nuclei (or even nucleons themselves) don't hold together.

If the universe is infinitely old, and stars have been around forever (see previous posts) then there must be infinite fuel for those stars

Erm...no? E.g. if you go though a periodic bang/crunch cycle that simply means your periodically reforming all the stuff there is (into quark gluon plasma and when it expands it'll gel back into nucleons).
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
Back in 1999, when I was 19, I started asking myself what is the smallest size that can't be cut in half, or the shortest amount of time that can't be divided.


Strange you should ask. There was an article just two days ago by Vanessa Janek that claimed it was 1.6 x 10-35 m and 5.4 x 10-44 sec.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
If the universe is infinitely old, and stars have been around forever (see previous posts) then there must be infinite fuel for those stars


Erm...no? E.g. if you go though a periodic bang/crunch cycle that simply means your periodically reforming all the stuff there is (into quark gluon plasma and when it expands it'll gel back into nucleons).


Directly from the article - "These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age."

There is no periodic bang/crunch according to this new theory.
HitchesGhost
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
Humm. Our laws of physics can't explain what happened before our laws of physics existed.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
or, something must be creating it at an equal or greater rate than it is being used.


.........is this your opinion?
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
or, something must be creating it at an equal or greater rate than it is being used.


.........is this your opinion?


No. It is what must be true for the universe to have always been here.
Ianerino
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
Ok, so the new theory scraps bangs and crunches but can it explain the spin?
I like the constant input, constant loss theory where the space / time plane is peppered with holes where energy falls into this plane from a higher plane and creates universes and galaxies. These universes then start leaking energy into the next plane below our existence.
Potentially changing the state of the energy from A to B to C and back to A again in an eternal loop. However, the question will still remain.... where the heck did all this energy come from in the first place? and who created it? and though it seems like rather a lot of energy in the universe to us, to an observer from the plane above it is minuscule, and to an observer in the plane below every atom in our universe holds enough energy to create their entire universe. Now, if only we could tap into the energy contained in the plane above us! ;)
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
Challenge math problem:

Can anybody prove that a unit square (1x1) can be filled with finite number of sub-squares all of which have different sizes.
Jim Zhao
jimzhao001@msn.com
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Universe and time has no beginning or ending. Any matter can be divided infinitely. We do not know which layer we are at but it does not matter due to the fact that there are infinite layers below un and infinite layers above us. There is no such thing called "multi-universe" because everything is part of the universe which is infinite in its size and have infinite dimensions (or layers).

Jim Zhao
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Back in 1999, when I was 19, I started asking myself what is the smallest size that can't be cut in half, or the shortest amount of time that can't be divided.

Strange you should ask. There was an article just two days ago by Vanessa Janek that claimed it was 1.6 x 10-35 m and 5.4 x 10-44 sec.

That was nonsense. What happed 1 hours before that 5.4 x 10-44 sec?

mburger
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Small minds will never fathom the muliti dimensional domains in the reality model as the insanity here is to approach the exercise from an external perspective, and not from the internal field of consciousness. The breath of fresh air in discarding the big bang is we can now finally admit that the elements are being continuously created and can be also created in the lab with existing technologies and in LENR conditions.

There has been a lot of fuss this past century focused on the need to incorporate gravity in the TOE modeling exercise. The failure here is that we have not incorporated consciousness from an experiential perspective and the severe constraints on the perceiver. The wider and hidden horizons become evident when we kick up the bandwidth (activating the golden brain glands, pituitary and pineal [DMT]) but mainstream science is a few years away from that consideration.

The stone megalith builders of old used these on board brain bandwidth faculties, and we do not.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
or, something must be creating it at an equal or greater rate than it is being used.


.........is this your opinion?


No. It is what must be true for the universe to have always been here.

........so it is your opinion.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
That was nonsense. What happed 1 hours before that 5.4 x 10-44 sec?


I never claimed it was accurate. I was just pointing out the article. Besides. There was no 1 hour before.

To stay on topic though, this new theory claims there never was a first 5.4 x 10-44 sec, so it's kind of meaningless.
TKO
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
"One has to be careful of a clever mind ...
You never know when you are going to outsmart yourself."
Tom Knutson
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
........so it is your opinion.


No. If the universe has always been here, then either stars only started forming about 13 billion years ago (in which case, those that claim it has will need to come up with plausible idea of what might have changed at that point) or, there have always been stars, in which case, hydrogen needs to have been in infinite supply. If you want to assume there was an infinite amount of hydrogen in an infinite universe, then there should be an infinite amount of heavy elements at this point. In order to fit current observations of the universe, however, that isn't the case. Those that want to stick to the infinitely old universe will need to come up with a way elements are recycled back into hydrogen, and at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
@ Benni
Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written is to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.
Nothing in the current cosmological model makes it a special phenomenon that could not be happening elsewhere and all the time; do not forget that 13.82 billion lys is but a dot if the universe is infinite. But why should we care about what is beyond our scope? Even a purely Newtonian universe would not be static.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
........so it is your opinion.


If you want to assume there was an infinite amount of hydrogen in an infinite universe, then there should be an infinite amount of heavy elements at this point. In order to fit current observations of the universe, however, that isn't the case. Those that want to stick to the infinitely old universe will need to come up with a way elements are recycled back into hydrogen, and at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up.


You can not tell the quantity of water in the ocean by studying a drip of water. You can not tell what happened by observing a piece of leave burring if you can not see a tree or the forest (you wonder where the leave came from). The universe is INFINITE so it has infinite ways of recycle materials which we may not be able to see.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
You can not tell the quantity of water in the ocean by studying a drip of water. You can not tell what happened by observing a piece of leave burring if you can not see a tree or the forest (you wonder where the leave came from). The universe is INFINITE so it has infinite ways of recycle materials which we may not be able to see.


So, you're willing to take it on faith that other parts of the universe are different than our observable one. That's your prerogative. It has nothing to do with science, though.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
Those that want to stick to the infinitely old universe will need to come up with a way elements are recycled back into hydrogen, and at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up.


......ever seen a Feynman Diagram for electron pair production? A component of It is energy (gamma frequency) that is transformed into mass.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
So, you're willing to take it on faith that other parts of the universe are different than our observable one. That's your prerogative. It has nothing to do with science, though.
Any matter can be divided infinitely. Reversely, there are infinite layer of matter above what we experience. In other worlds, universe has infinite dimensions. Mathematically, any number X can be divided into X/n, so it can be expanded into nX. when n approaches infinite, it does not matter if the number is nX or (n+1)X, they are equal. We are sitting n, being able to discover n-1, n+1, or even n+2, n+3...but we will never be able to discover ALL. That is the beauty, otherwise there will be the end for human to discover...
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
......ever seen a Feynman Diagram for electron pair production? A component of It is energy (gamma frequency) that is transformed into mass.


It's the " at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up" part that doesn't fit with the observable universe.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
@ ConfoundedSociety

Sir: If you can pass the following simple math test (undergraduate level) to show that you have sufficient education, I will discuss with you in more details. I do not want to talk about GOD or anything like that.

Prove that a unit square (1x1) can be filled with finite number of sub-squares all of which have different sizes.
Jim Zhao
jimzhao001@msn.com

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
ConfoundedSociety
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Any matter can be divided infinitely.


Only on paper. Not in reality.
tadchem
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Thermodynamics demands that the Universe's entropy decreases as one chronologically regresses, but that entropy can never go negative. The beginning of the universe (and of time) may be defined as the moment when the Universe's entropy was zero.
S = k ln(W), and W is a non-negative integer (the count of possible energy states of the system).
When W was unity, S was zero.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
If you can pass the following simple math test (undergraduate level) to show that you have sufficient education, I do not want to talk about GOD or anything like that.

@ Jim Z: What is your opinion about this quote in Einsteins GR?
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

TKO
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
A focus on Hydrogen - Alkali metals and other Non-metals
http://www.rsc.or...position
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
@Benni:
100 years ago everybody would say that Newton's theory were perfect (fits all their observations). Einstein extended the boundary so we can see the limitations of Newton's theory. Einstein's theory fits well with our limited observations so far (but not perfectly already). One of the limitations is that it assumed that universe is finite (so it has shape). If you assume that universe is infinite (all the observations indicates in that direction), and time is not uni-dimensions (it is at least a function of physical location), the theory is waiting to be extended.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
......ever seen a Feynman Diagram for electron pair production? A component of It is energy (gamma frequency) that is transformed into mass.


It's the " at a rate that replenishes that hydrogen as fast as it's being used up" part that doesn't fit with the observable universe.


.........but we have no way of knowing there is not a replenishment rate. Is there a method either via calculation or observation that you can point to? My point being that we don't know what the transformation rate(s) are at other photon frequencies or what other methods in addition to electron pair production transformations are likely to occur.
vjb007
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
The nature of the announcement is hardly surprising to those of my era (c. 1962). They came to their conclusion as high schoolers based not on complicated theories of math, but on the simple premise that something cannot come from nothing. At its core, that's always been the problem with "THE Big Bang" theory. What about MANY Big Bangs, etc? We await to see if mathematics in general is suited to solving/proving this class of problem.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
@Benni:
Einstein extended the boundary so we can see the limitations of Newton's theory.


He extended what "boundary"? That of the universe?
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
....but we have no way of knowing there is not a replenishment rate. Is there a method either via calculation or observation that you can point to? My point being that we don't know what the transformation rate(s) are at other photon frequencies or what other methods in addition to electron pair production transformations are likely to occur.


Here's the gist of it. Show me where in the known universe there is a hydrogen factory that produces even the amount of hydrogen being burned by a single star on at least a 1:1 basis, or show me a paper describing a theoretical object that does this. If it's not at least 1:1 hydrogen production vs consumption in the universe, BTW, then, in the infinite time prior to this, all hydrogen would have been depleted.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
The nature of the announcement is hardly surprising to those of my era (c. 1962). They came to their conclusion as high schoolers based not on complicated theories of math, but on the simple premise that something cannot come from nothing. At its core, that's always been the problem with "THE Big Bang" theory.


It can if the total remains zero.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
The nature of the announcement is hardly surprising to those of my era (c. 1962). They came to their conclusion as high schoolers based not on complicated theories of math, but on the simple premise that something cannot come from nothing. At its core, that's always been the problem with "THE Big Bang" theory. What about MANY Big Bangs, etc? We await to see if mathematics in general is suited to solving/proving this class of problem.


The Big Bang theory never said the universe came from nothing. If that were the case, then scientists would be perfectly happy to simply put their efforts into trying to figure out how that happened. It says the universe came from ???. That's something these guys can't handle.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
OK I can see that the model terms, thought of as a constant term etc. keep the universe finite and not shrinking to zero (going backwards of course) but that does not 'give it an infinite age'. The 'therefore' is just shoved in as though it is obvious. I suspect that the writer perhaps does not quite 'get' what is being suggested. If the size shrinks, the time shrinks as well perhaps, but does the time shrink to a standstill? I don't see why not. If so, the universe has existed for ever, in the sense that it has existed for all the time that has ever passed.


Time doesn't disappear until you hit the singularity, which these guys have found a way to avoid. That means, even if you are right, that however slow time got, it still progressed. Since we are talking about an infinite amount of time, it's speed is irrelevant in this context.
Losik
Feb 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
sirwet
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
The both scientist are creationists. They have been trying hard for sometime.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
..but we have no way of knowing there is not a replenishment rate. Is there a method either via calculation or observation that you can point to? My point being that we don't know what the transformation rate(s) are at other photon frequencies or what other methods in addition to electron pair production transformations are likely to occur.


Show me where in the known universe there is a hydrogen factory that produces even the amount of hydrogen being burned by a single star on at least a 1:1 basis, or show me a paper describing a theoretical object that does this. If it's not at least 1:1 hydrogen production vs consumption in the universe, BTW, then, in the infinite time prior to this, all hydrogen would have been depleted.


.........and you've just put your finger on the mystery of Einsteins' Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle, it is incalculable to know the "rate" & but transformation is observable, but what's to say the transformation must be to hydrogen?
vjb007
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
"The Big Bang theory never said the universe came from nothing....."

In truth, it's semantics, which contributes to great confusion. The literature is replete with discussion of The Big Bang as being "the beginning of time." That strongly implies there was nothing before that. In addition, some accompanying math two decades ago in support of The Big Bang purported to show that something can come from nothing. It's been the same with the literature concerning the Higgs. It's been described both as the particle that gives other particles mass, i.e., "The God particle;" and in the same article, it's been described as one of many particles that derive from the Higgs field. The scientific community needs to do a much better job of clearly communicating.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
......and you've just put your finger on the mystery of Einsteins' Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle, it is incalculable to know the "rate" & but transformation is observable, but what's to say the transformation must be to hydrogen?


Because we are discussing stars in a universe that is infinitely old. The structures that I have pointed out that must exist, don't. Not in our observable universe and not even in theory. It's nice to have the math actually work, but the idea of a universe that has always existed poses some basic problems that no one has ever been able to get around, even when the static universe theory was the popular one.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
In truth, it's semantics, which contributes to great confusion. The literature is replete with discussion of The Big Bang as being "the beginning of time." That strongly implies there was nothing before that.


It is referred to as the beginning of time because time ceases to exist at the singularity point (just before reaching it, actually). That's not to say there wasn't time prior to that singularity. But whatever happened prior to that singularity is impossible for us to know. Saying it was "nothing" is a complete misnomer. That is a possibility, but so is another universe collapsing into a singularity, or any other possible explanation. "Nothing" implies you know.
russell_russell
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
But the CONCEPT of one is priceless... - WG


Yes.

Nothing's likelihood is labeled zero.
This likelihood (probability) for nothing is an event
Numbering this event (as a first event) makes no sense - This event is a term without constriction. This event provides condition.
Condition for what?
A priceless concept.

Kolmogorov provided the setting for a priceless concept.
The label 'one' harbors meaning for everyone.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
@ngeorgalis This includes the Biblical account of Creation which all these atheist wackos are really trying to undermine with all their malarkey about dark energy, dark matter, gravitons, the Higgs Boson and all the other modern day physics non-sense.
Children are also born atheists. So you're disparaging every person ever born that you didn't successfully brainwash
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Children are also born atheists. So you're disparaging every person ever born that you didn't successfully brainwash


Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
...and you've just put your finger on the mystery of Einsteins' Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle, it is incalculable to know the "rate" & but transformation is observable, but what's to say the transformation must be to hydrogen?


Because we are discussing stars in a universe that is infinitely old. The structures that I have pointed out that must exist, don't


Scattered throughout the universe exist high metallicity (higher even than He) stars mixed with low metallicity stars, this implies age, or it suggests transformation of mass/energy is occurring in a manner we still cannot observe in our colliders to explain this.



ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
Scattered throughout the universe exist high metallicity (higher even than He) stars mixed with low metallicity stars, this implies age, or it suggests transformation of mass/energy is occurring in a manner we still cannot observe in our colliders to explain this.


So, just like jim_zhao_cc, you choose to take it on faith that this is happening. Again, that's your prerogative. But, no assumptions need to be made to explain the life cycle of the stars under the Big Bang theory.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Children are also born atheists. So you're disparaging every person ever born that you didn't successfully brainwash
@ConfoundedSociety Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.
So children aren't brainwashed until you brainwash them and teach them to stop asking questions about the world because all the answers are in your fairy tale book. Thanks, Captain Obvious
ConfoundedSociety
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
So children aren't brainwashed until you brainwash them and teach them to stop asking questions about the world because all the answers are in your fairy tale book. Thanks, Captain Obvious


Atheism is as devout a religion as exists. The brainwashing accusation could just as easily be applied to you.
rodajo
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
Now what will I watch on Thursday night? I will miss seeing Sheldon.
vjb007
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
"It is referred to as the beginning of time because time ceases to exist at the singularity point (just before reaching it, actually). That's not to say there wasn't time prior to that singularity."

That may well be. No matter, tho---the point is what we read in the literature implies just the opposite. And the aforementioned math in defense of The Big Bang to show that something can come from nothing clearly cements the notion that the basic talk continues to be about "the beginning" versus "always was." Indeed, the lead sentence of the article above begins "The universe may have existed forever...." Here we have a continuing case of layered semantics. What do we mean by "the universe"? And what do we mean exactly by "time"? The "always was" issue has predictably led some down the road to question if "time" itself is a fundamental quantity. It may not be. I see their point. For if the "universe" always was, then "time" in and of itself basically has no meaning.
rodajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015
Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Antialias_physorg 1:1

"In the beginning there was no god. And not even thereafter."

And now you can ponder why your version should be more likely than mine. (Hint: you're not gonna find a logical answer to that one)
Ianerino
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
In the beginning there was nothing. ... No. In the beginning there were some laws. There may not have been any matter or any energy but the laws were there. These laws will always exist. When our universe is no more and all the matter has been turned to pure energy. And when that energy has dissipated to absolute zero. The laws will remain. Waiting... Maybe.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Antialias_physorg 1:1

"In the beginning there was no god. And not even thereafter."

And now you can ponder why your version should be more likely than mine. (Hint: you're not gonna find a logical answer to that one)


The ironic part is, neither are you.
rodajo
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
My rhetorical question is whether there is anyone posting here who has sufficient understanding of theoretical physics and the underlying math to actually explain this? As an engineer my knowledge of physics pretty much begins and ends with Newtonian mechanics. The science and math of the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, string theory... are esoteric to the point that most people, myself included, accept the current science as a reasonable hypothesis by those who are the leading experts in the field. That said, I wonder if we are just looking at the current boundary conditions for our modeling and that "reality" is far more expansive and perhaps beyond our ability to fully model. I am not proposing that creationism is "the" answer as it has no scientific basis. The general public (like me) needs to have a healthy level of skepticism as to any theory of the origin of the universe no matter how scientific.We may never have the information nor the capacity to develop a unified theory.
rodajo
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Antialias_physorg 1:1

"In the beginning there was no god. And not even thereafter."

And now you can ponder why your version should be more likely than mine. (Hint: you're not gonna find a logical answer to that one)

In my limited understanding of the physics described in this article there was no beginning. I admit that trying to truly conceptualize infinity outside of a mathematical construct is beyond my capability. So too is my ability to conceptualize a starting point to our universe without attempting to put it in a broader context that it was created by some force outside the boundaries of that universe. Mathematics and theoretical physics can provide plausible theories for both limited by our reference data. I just don't know how limited our data really is.
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
So children aren't brainwashed until you brainwash them and teach them to stop asking questions about the world because all the answers are in your fairy tale book. Thanks, Captain Obvious
@ConfoundedSociety Atheism is as devout a religion as exists. The brainwashing accusation could just as easily be applied to you.
So why did your gawd make children as atheists? It seems your gawd has an inferiority complex
In the beginning there was nothing.
There is always structure at the core of QM, so even the vacuum makes ephemeral particles
mburger
not rated yet Feb 11, 2015
rodajo said
"My rhetorical question is whether there is anyone posting here who has sufficient understanding of theoretical physics and the underlying math to actually explain this? As an engineer my knowledge of physics pretty much begins and ends with Newtonian mechanics."

As an engineer myself I say stay with your common sense.

Physics and math are only limited tools and will not carry well across the dimensional domains. Consciousness is the key…. not gravity. As engineers we know we cannot build the Stone Megaliths of Old. Yet there they are, and the builders evidently had tools (not necessarily mechanical tools) we do not. I went from somewhat clever 25 year new energy technology developer, to a gold making alchemist when I accidently learned how to restore my pituitary and pineal glands (DMT).

Stay with the data no matter how inconvenient, replicated data is much more valuable than moronic modeling.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
@ConfoundedSociety Atheism is as devout a religion as exists. The brainwashing accusation could just as easily be applied to you.


So why did your gawd make children as atheists? It seems your gawd has an inferiority complex


You obviously failed to check the previous posts. First, last time I checked, I don't own any "gawd." Second, I've already explained that children aren't atheists.

kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
@ConfoundedSociety You obviously failed to check the previous posts. First, last time I checked, I don't own any "gawd." Second, I've already explained that children aren't atheists
An atheist is a nonbeliever. You need to learn your native language, not make up your own or talk in tongues. Of course you don't own gawd he owns your a**, which is why you call him and the entity that owns your home LORD
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
An atheist is a nonbeliever. You need to learn your native language, not make up your own or talk in tongues. Of course you don't own gawd he owns your a**, which is why you call him and the entity that owns your home LORD


No. An Atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Until someone understands the concept of god, they can neither be believer nor nonbeliever. And you are making a whole lot of assumptions about what I believe.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
@ConfoundedSociety No. An Atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Until someone understands the concept of god, they can neither be believer nor nonbeliever. And you are making a whole lot of assumptions about what I believe.
No, you are an pathological bullshitter who makes up words on the fly, twisting semantics like taffee and lacks any regard for the English dictionary

"First, he is assuming that every time we see the "-ism" ending on a word we are therefore looking at a label for some ideology, belief system, religion, etc. Second, he is assuming that "atheist" is only defined by the very narrow idea of actively disputing the existence of gods.

It is not true that everything with the -ism suffix is some sort of ideology. Terrorism isn't an ideology, it's a practice or tactic. Heroism isn't an ideology, it's a characteristic or quality. A person with astigmatism is not a person whose ideology consists of not forming any points"
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
No, you are an pathological bullshitter who makes up words on the fly, twisting semantics like taffee and lacks any regard for the English dictionary


atheist
Syllabification: a·the·ist
Pronunciation: /ˈÄ�THÄ�É�st /
Definition of atheist in English:
NOUN

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

It never ceases to amaze me how instantly angry Atheists get when you challenge their religion.

You cannot lack belief in something you have no concept of. Does a child lack belief in Europe?
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
No, you are an pathological bullshitter who makes up words on the fly, twisting semantics like taffee and lacks any regard for the English dictionary
@ConfoundedSociety atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:
You just concurred with my posts without realizing
You cannot lack belief in something you have no concept of.
Actually the exact opposite is true!
Does a child lack belief in Europe?
Europe is a fact, not a belief
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Does a child lack belief in Europe?


Europe is a fact, not a belief


Does a child lack belief in neutrinos? Does a child lack belief other dimensions? The term has no meaning what-so-ever until you know what those things mean.

The truly ironic part is that you are essentially claiming god made you an Atheist.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
Does a child lack belief in Europe?
Europe is a fact, not a belief
@ConfoundedSociety Does a child lack belief in neutrinos?
No, he lacks a knowledge of neutrinos. You confuse education with indoctrination
Does a child lack belief other dimensions?
No he lacks a maths education
The term has no meaning what-so-ever until you know what those things mean.
That is the philosophy of quantum solipsism. Not yet universally agreed upon and I doubt you would agree either if you knew what your words implied
The truly ironic part is that you are essentially claiming god made you an Atheist.
No, YOU made the claim by IMPLICATION. But apparently you don't know basic logic
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
@ConfoundedSociety Does a child lack belief in neutrinos?

No, he lacks a knowledge of neutrinos. You confuse education with indoctrination


Does a child lack belief other dimensions?

No he lacks a maths education


And yet, you claim that a child who has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are contradicting yourself.

The truly ironic part is that you are essentially claiming god made you an Atheist.

No, YOU made the claim by IMPLICATION. But apparently you don't know basic logic


No. Your words, not mine - "So why did your gawd make children as atheists?"
James_Mooney
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2015
I've always called the Big Bang the Detroit model of the universe. It expands-contracts-expands-contracts like a piston engine: Banga, Banga, Banga...

If entropy increases as the Bangverse expands, play that backward. At the Big Bang the universe had infinite organization and information-density. Where did that come from?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
Atheism is as devout a religion as exists
@ConfoundedSociety
technically speaking, Atheism is NOT a religion. "it is in a broad sense the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist" https://en.wikipe.../Atheism
a religion is the codification of a set of beliefs usually centered around a faith in order to create a set of rules or laws for the inclusion of the "good" acolytes and prejudice of the "bad" non believers (usually used to segregate the people and establish a leadership). Religions are designed to control people and cause friction and judgement for arbitrary reasons selected by a controlling group within the organization much like political parties, but with usually more dire consequences, be it immediate or the control through fear of afterlife punishment
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
@ConfoundedSociety contin'd
The ironic part is, neither are you
the point is not that there is no logical explanation, but that you are assuming superiority over much older texts which have a lot longer historical and otherwise standing

Logically speaking, if you are going to accept any deity, it should be the oldest/most established, therefore the x-tian god will fall under the American 1st nation god(s) as well as most Asiatic beliefs
Then there is the consideration of deeds and works, which are far more likely to be outnumbered by the above than xtian's
Then there is the simple fact that most modern xtian converts simply ignore the laws of the bible they supposedly cherish as well as ignore ANY rule that they want with impunity because they're "saved"
which, again, is illogical as well as not a good representation (it speaks to the ends justify the means, right? lies are ok if you are trying to trick a non-believer... see ren82 or jvk on that one)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
@ConfoundedSociety contin'd
The ironic part is
but the most important part of all is simplythis part: xtian religion is based upon a faith, which, by definition is a belief in something without proof

it is not provable

This is about SCIENCE, and thus provable stuff
and by provable, i choose the definition as such: having evidence to support the facts, or being able to repeatedly demonstrate using the scientific method that a certain set of statements are true or correct

IOW - SCIENCE

that is the point
DarkLordKelvin
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
Atheists always claim that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god ... there is similarly no scientific evidence that god does not exist. The scientific method requires experimentally falsifiable hypotheses ... as far as I know, nobody has proposed an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that can address this question (one way or the other) in sufficiently robust terms to be convincing to an open-minded, rational person. For one thing, how would you design appropriate control experiments, to ensure that your measurements reflected the quantity you were actually trying to measure (whatever that might be)? How would you define "god" in a way that even allowed meaningful experiments to be performed? Finally, no scientific theory is ever proven true, they are only proven false. So, the only way to prove the existence of god would be to start from an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that god exists, and then do a series of experiments that prove it to be wrong.
Sir Isaac
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
Why doesn't Science just ADMIT that because they weren't there to witness the events, they will NEVER be able to say, with 100% surety, how the Universe ever came into being! Everyone wants to say that THEY have the new solution - but it will ALWAYS just be THEORIES. And, Science Always Changes! What is really comical, is that Science will say that all of what we observe in the world, is a result of CHANCE, and as Richard Dawkins has stated - that we got "SOMETHING FROM NOTHING"!!! However ... they spent millions of dollars, CREATING the Hadron Collider (to try and CREATE a Higgs Boson) in Geneva - which DID NOT come into being by CHANCE - it was made by human hands, with materials that ALREADY EXISTED - it's Synchotron DID NOT appear by CHANCE!! The Proton Beams, Superconducting Magnets, Vacuum Pipe, Helium Gas, etc., and all the computers were put in place by human hands, NOT BY CHANCE! They CREATED the Higgs Boson, themselves, and then try to claim it did it on IT'S OWN ... WHAT??
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
The upshot of my previous post is that the only viewpoint on the existent of god that is consistent with the scientific method is agnosticism. If one is only going to accept things that are scientifically valid as "true", then one must accept that the question of the existence of a supreme being is outside the scope of the intended purpose of science. This is not to say that one cannot pursue science-like methods of inquiry until the matter is settled to one's OWN satisfaction, but that is not really science. Science is objective (or at least as objective as any exercise carried out by humans can be), so a valid scientific approach to settle the existence (or non-existence) of god must be convincing to at least a significant minority, if not a majority, of other scientists. This is essentially the personal crisis faced by Ellie Arroway at the end of "Contact" (I will not give further details, so as to avoid spoiling the excellent plot for those who may not have read it.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
@

So, the only way to prove the existence of god would be to start from an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that god exists, and then do a series of experiments that prove it to be wrong.


That should read, "So, the only way to prove the NON-existence of god would be to start from an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that god exists, and then do a series of experiments that prove it to be wrong."

I apologize, I am new to this site, and I am not used to either the character limit, or the 3 minute time limit for edits.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
@ConfoundedSociety contin'd


The ironic part is, neither are you


the point is not that there is no logical explanation, but that you are assuming superiority over much older texts which have a lot longer historical and otherwise standing

Logically speaking, if you are going to accept any deity, it should be the oldest/most established, therefore the x-tian god will fall under the American 1st nation god(s) as well as most Asiatic beliefs


You are trying to pull me into your metaphysics and philosophy. I mentioned this earlier as well. You are trying to argue against religion instead of against the existence of god. The assumption of your question is that man created god, and if anyone takes the bait, you've instantly won the debate. God, if he exists, predates man, so any religion is irrelevant to whether or not he exists.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
This is about SCIENCE, and thus provable stuff
and by provable, i choose the definition as such: having evidence to support the facts, or being able to repeatedly demonstrate using the scientific method that a certain set of statements are true or correct

IOW - SCIENCE

that is the point


So you openly admit that, all things being equal, god is as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence.
DarkLordKelvin
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
I got a little lost reading all the comments, but I wanted to say that the question "If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, why is there still hydrogen for the stars to burn", raised by at least one previous poster, is a very important one. Any theory that postulates a finite-sized universe with infinite age (and by inference, no past "singularities") must address this question, along with the question, "Whence entropy?", which is in essence the same question, but addressing a larger scope. It is entropy (via the 2nd law of thermodynamics) that allows stars to "burn" hydrogen at all, at least in the way we understand it. Stellar fusion is possible because there is a net gain in free energy as smaller nuclei are fused into larger ones (at least from protons up to iron and nickel nuclei). This is all consistent with the current mainstream cosmological theory (which as I understand it has evolved beyond the "Big Bang" .. but I am by no means a cosmology expert).
MandoZink
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015
So you openly admit that, all things being equal, god is as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence.

Wrong.

"God did it" is simply invoking a magical explanation. It is what theists always do when they see the edge of our current understanding.

Every thing which has previously been attributed to a "universal magic entity" has eventually been understood by science. We keep moving the boundary of our ignorance further away and discovering what is really going on. Invoking the magical workings of a God is what theists with little understanding of science always do.

Don't worry. Science always gets there. Unfortunately you'll be dead though and won't find out. We learn to get over that.
Sir Isaac
2.2 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015
Atheists DO BELIEVE that there is no God. It IS a belief system in their OWN beliefs. And they have much FAITH in what they believe and in SCIENCE and write many books and spend hundreds of hours, trying to convince people into believing what they believe and that all others who believe in God are fools.

Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

If you say that the Christian religion is based on Faith, then you have to say belief that Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, etc., ever existed is based on Faith, as well. There are only 7 manuscripts that exist on Plato; 49 manuscripts on Aristotle; 10 for Caesar - all with thousands of years between the original and its copies ... yet there are 5,600 manuscripts of the New Testament, regarding Jesus Christ, with less than 100 years between the original and its copies.
ConfoundedSociety
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2015
"God did it" is simply invoking a magical explanation. It is what theists always do when they see the edge of our current understanding.

Every thing which has previously been attributed to a "universal magic entity" has eventually been understood by science.


That is not even close to being true. Please give us the scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of the universe. How about the start of life on this planet? How about Fatima, or any of the host of other "miracles" that science has failed to explain?

You are another one who instantly gets angry when your religion is challenged. The scientific answer is "maybe." That's just a simple fact.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2015
You are trying to argue against religion instead of against the existence of god
@Confounded
no, i am clarifying a few things as well as telling you that religion is a made up artifice of man as well as a means of controlling others, you are confusing religion with a faith

I posit that unless you can prove that your deity exists, then your point is irrelevant as it is not considered science
...as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence
it is actually stated much more clearly above by DarkLordKelvin
that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god ... there is similarly no scientific evidence that god does not exist. The scientific method requires experimentally falsifiable hypotheses ... as far as I know, nobody has proposed an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis that can address this question (one way or the other) in sufficiently robust terms to be convincing to an open-minded, rational person
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2015
Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

No, that is not "true" from a scientific standpoint .. you cannot convince someone of those things based on any sort of objective evidence that can be experimentally tested (using scientific methodology) in the present day. If I want to convince someone about the theory of gravitation, I can drop a rock on their foot ... many times if necessary ... until they get it. If I want to convince you of the existence of the CMB, I can wait until you have sufficient background in basic physics and astrophysics to understand the experimental methodology and results, and then repeat the seminal experiments to re-demonstrate the phenomenon.
As far as the existence of historical individuals like Plato and Caesar is concerned, your points are valid, but it's their ideas that actually matter.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015
Please give us the scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of the universe. How about the start of life on this planet? How about Fatima, or any of the host of other "miracles" that science has failed to explain?
@confounded
i am not speaking for Mando, but i will reply to your post with a simple video that may help you comprehend what Mando as well as some others are talking about regarding religion and science, and the fact that just because we don't know it now doesn't mean we will never know it
https://www.youtu...6f8lv6qc
another one

https://www.youtu...0hkLNr3w

i hope that clears up the science vs religion debate for you
religions have historically given up and consigned things to their god, but then someone comes along and says... This is how it works (see Planetary orbits, etc)
thus religion is a cop out with regard to science

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2015
POST SCRIPT
with regard to the links, I only endorse the science being expounded upon by Dr. Tyson, not on the political or other BS attached to it, such as the support from democrats etc

i am NOT political, nor will i endorse ANY political party

this video might be a better link and may well explain the problem better
https://www.youtu...HxftS8MI

it references the "god of the gaps" as well and this is the reason that religion has NO PLACE in science

especially modern science
he also addresses the fact that it is empirically false that you must be religious to be moral

watch away
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
no, i am clarifying a few things as well as telling you that religion is a made up artifice of man as well as a means of controlling others, you are confusing religion with a faith[/p]

Nobody cares. Because religion has nothing to do with whether or not god exists.

[p]I posit that unless you can prove that your deity exists, then your point is irrelevant as it is not considered science


And now you make the mistake of claiming that any explanation not 100% proven must be dismissed out of hand as impossible. Please tell us you 100% proven explanation for the creation of the universe. For the start of life on this planet. For Fatima.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
Please give us the scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of the universe. How about the start of life on this planet? How about Fatima, or any of the host of other "miracles" that science has failed to explain?


@confounded
i am not speaking for Mando, but i will reply to your post with a simple video that may help you comprehend what Mando as well as some others are talking about regarding religion and science, and the fact that just because we don't know it now doesn't mean we will never know it


Again, religion is completely irrelevant. And I'm the one saying we don't know. You are claiming to have proof that god cannot be the answer to the questions I've posed (questions you completely ignored, BTW.)
dragonmoksha
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
Einstein's theory of general relativity is wrong !!!
DorkLardKevin
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.

No, that is not "true" from a scientific standpoint .. you cannot convince someone of those things based on any sort of objective evidence that can be experimentally tested (using scientific methodology) in the present day.

Of course you can. I see it happen every Wednesday night and Sunday morning during service. In any case, sorry for trolling your name, in hindsight, it was poor form.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2015
I really only came back here to see how bad this article's comment section was getting.

Captain S. - Got any idea how these people ended up on a science site? This is so far off the yellow brick road and make-believe land. I don't think I've ever seen this before.
mburger
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
Why don't you guys take this idiotic conversation elsewhere. No wonder the world is so F*cked up!
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
@ConfoundedSociety And yet, you claim that a child who has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are contradicting yourself.
So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are an idiot
No. Your words, not mine - "So why did your gawd make children as atheists?"
Fine, so why did your dragon make children as atheists? Now I believe in the existence of dragons. Or at least now I believe in your christ psychosis
So you openly admit that, all things being equal, god is as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence.
Actually dragons are as rational an explanation as any, all things being equal
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
And now you can ponder why your version should be more likely than mine. (Hint: you're not gonna find a logical answer to that one)

The ironic part is, neither are you.

Well, the beauty of it is that Genesis made the claim first - and therefore has to provide the evdence first.
Otherwise arguments along the lines of "Unicorns exist - prove me wrong - you can't- therefore unicorns have been proven to exist" would be a valid.
manuel_alfonseca
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
Has anyone here read the original paper in arXiv and can provide an opinion on a simple mathematical question? I'm concerned about the new interpretation offered about the cosmological constant.

The first quantum correction term is presented as an alternative to the second term in Friedman equation (Lambda.c^2/3), where the value of Lambda is about 10^-123 in Planck units or 10^-52 m^-2. The new term (Lambda_Q) is computed in equations (5) and (6) to be about 10^-123 in Planck units or 10^-52 m^-2. But this is not the same as the term to be replaced, where this value is multiplied by c^2/3!

Am I mistaken?
movementiseternal
Feb 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
Children are also born atheists. So you're disparaging every person ever born that you didn't successfully brainwash


Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.


This presumes that there is rational and tangible knowledge to be had that would lead one to a believe in god. This begs the entire question.

However you're correct that 'Children are born ignorant' and so not born atheist. It's more correct to say they're born agnostic as the question for them is not regarded with any meaning.

In my view, atheism and theism are on the same level of irrationality.... both aim to speak of metaphysics, which is not amendable to science (DarkLord is correct) and thus can not be a source of knowledge. Agnosticism is the only rational standpoint to take.... i.e. the question is meaningless or has to rational answer.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
In my view, atheism and theism are on the same level of irrationality.... both aim to speak of metaphysics, which is not amendable to science

I think they are more like the numbers 1 and 0. Theism is a theory (in whatever form). Atheism is the absence of a theory. (Just like you can have 1 of a thing but you cannot HAVE 0 of a thing. 0 is just an abstract, whereas 1 is quantity)

The ground state is atheism. It is not sensible to assume a theory where there is no evidence that one is needed, therefore atheism does not have to battle on an equal footing with theism. Theism makes claims and therefore must defend those claims. Atheism makes no prior claim - therfore until/unless a signed confession by a god as to "I did it" turns up the onus of proof/evidence is entirely on theism.

Agnosticism would be "not sure, but could well be". However, theism is, without evidence, not even close to the "could well be" terrain.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2015
Religions are designed to control people and cause friction and judgement for arbitrary reasons selected by a controlling group within the organization much like political parties, but with usually more dire consequences, be it immediate or the control through fear


Reads just like a perfect description of the so-called science of climatology
jim_zhao_cc
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
The problem is E=MC^2 is not necessarily valid!



The equation is right only based on our current knowledge and limitations of observations. I believe "things can not be created nor will they disappear. They can only transfer from various formats". "THINGS should include EVERY FORMAT, which includes mess, energy, etc. etc., many of which formats have not been discovered. Also I believe that "Things can be divided indefinitely". that is why so many format of things have yet to be discovered. I also believe that Universe and time are infinite -- no boundaries or beginning or ends...they are always there and will be there...
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
My rhetorical question is whether there is anyone posting here who has sufficient understanding of theoretical physics and the underlying math to actually explain this? As an engineer my knowledge of physics pretty much begins and ends with Newtonian mechanics. The science and math of the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, string theory... are esoteric to the point that most people, myself included, accept the current science as a reasonable hypothesis by those who are the leading experts in the field. .

People are trying to find the origin of the universe. But the matter of fact is : there is no origin. The universe has always been there and will always be there.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
The ground state is atheism. It is not sensible to assume a theory where there is no evidence that one is needed, therefore atheism does not have to battle on an equal footing with theism. Theism makes claims and therefore must defend those claims. Atheism makes no prior claim - [...]the onus of proof/evidence is entirely on theism.


I have to respectfully disagree. It is not that the default state is atheist,... as if one born without any concept of a god would be a atheist by default; he would not qualify because he has not considered the question at all. Immediately upon stating "there is no evidence for god" or "there is evidence for god" you have entered into metaphysics by making either a negative statement concerning the question or a positive one. They're on the same level in this sense.

.....
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2015
So, Jim.......is Einstein wrong in his General Relativity when he makes the following statement:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2015
The term agnosticism does not mean "not sure, maybe could be",.... rather it's purpose is to distinguish from atheism,... it means the (metaphysical) question is unknowable or meaningless with respect to how we acquire knowledge; the question is not amendable to science either in a positive sense or a negative sense. Therefore atheists are as irrational as theists, expecting or demanding evidence of something not amendable to evidence to begin with.

Atheists considered the question and consciously decided not to believe, thus rendering themselves as irrational as theists(, imo).

EDIT: "Agnosticism is the only rational standpoint to take.... i.e. the question is meaningless or [can have no] rational [empirical] answer.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
Why don't you guys take this idiotic conversation elsewhere. No wonder the world is so F*cked up!


I agree. Why is it that Atheists can't stop talking about a subject they claim to not believe in?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
he would not qualify because he has not considered the question at all

That is atheism. Theism isn't a competeing theory to atheims but rather a non-issue as far as atheism is concerned.
An agnostic would put it in the unknowable camp where the various theories are independent and equally supportable (and where choosing one over the other is equally valid). This is not the case, as theism requires support whereas atheism does not.
Atheism isn't a theory - it is the absence of a theory.

Why is it that Atheists can't stop talking about a subject they claim to not believe in?

Because it vexes us that grown people believe in fairy tales? And are willing to murder for it? (If they would just kill themselves no one would say anything, though. Be assured of that. Everyone wins. We get to live in a world without delusional people and they get to go to heaven.)
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are an idiot


A worm is a non-sentient being. Please explain why you think they can "believe" anything.

Fine, so why did your dragon make children as atheists? Now I believe in the existence of dragons. Or at least now I believe in your christ psychosis


It doesn't matter what entity you ascribe my ownership of… the fault in your statement is that children are Atheists.

So you openly admit that, all things being equal, god is as rational an explanation as any other for events for which we have no evidence.


Actually dragons are as rational an explanation as any, all things being equal


You'd have to give a generic definition of dragon to back that up. Since dragons are generally accepted to be organic, living creatures, your relief that they are a rational explanation of how the universe was created says a great deal about your logic skills.
Losik
Feb 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
The ground state is atheism. It is not sensible to assume a theory where there is no evidence that one is needed, therefore atheism does not have to battle on an equal footing with theism. Theism makes claims and therefore must defend those claims. Atheism makes no prior claim - therfore until/unless a signed confession by a god as to "I did it" turns up the onus of proof/evidence is entirely on theism.


If Athiesm makes no prior claim, then it would have no problem with the following list of ideas as to what created the universe -

A. Nothing, it's always been here (see article)
B. A collapsing prior universe once again exploded once it reached a singularity
C. Energy from an alternate universe or dimension leaked in to create a Big Bang
D. God

(This is by no means an exhaustive list)

But you don't. Instead, you insist that D must be thrown out immediately. When asked why, you say "because you can't prove it." …. You can't prove any of them.
ConfoundedSociety
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
People are trying to find the origin of the universe. But the matter of fact is : there is no origin. The universe has always been there and will always be there.


You have a strange definition of "fact."
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
Why is it that Atheists can't stop talking about a subject they claim to not believe in?


Because it vexes us that grown people believe in fairy tales? And are willing to murder for it? (If they would just kill themselves no one would say anything, though. Be assured of that. Everyone wins. We get to live in a world without delusional people and they get to go to heaven.)


So now anyone who believes in God is a murderer, huh? Maybe you should look North Carolina to see what a member of your religion just did.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015
An agnostic would put it in the unknowable camp where the various theories are independent and equally supportable and where choosing one over the other is equally valid


Factually incorrect. To an agnostic they are not "equally supportable" nor "equally valid", but rather they're equally meaningless.

This is not the case, as theism requires support whereas atheism does not.

Incorrect,... the position of atheists is ENTIRELY based on lack of supporting evidence which they constantly demand as an inverse means of supporting their position,.... what is a constant among theists and atheists is talk of evidence either in a positive sense or a negative sense,.... whereas agnostics understand there can be no such evidence for metaphysical questions that are amendable to any valid means of acquiring knowledge.

If you are one who asks a theist for evidence for god, then de facto, you are an atheist,..... as position as irrational as theism.
gbash
4 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
Who are these science deniers? BB is settled science. There's a consensus!
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015
Who are these science deniers?
About which of the above posters do you refer to?

BB is settled science.
When did that happen? The author of this paper doesn't think so.

There's a consensus!
Among whom?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2015
I really only came back here to see how bad this article's comment section was getting.


Captain S. - Got any idea how these people ended up on a science site? This is so far off the yellow brick road and make-believe land. I don't think I've ever seen this before.


You should just as well be asking him how he as a retired firefighter ended up here, he doesn't know anything about science either. He's the king of Copy & Paste on this site, when he's not busy making threats to commit identity theft against you when you disagree with him.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god lacks belief. You are an idiot
@Counfounded A worm is a non-sentient being. Please explain why you think they can "believe" anything.
You did not require sentience. Like every christ psychotic, when proven fallacious you change the definitions. Again your claim that living things all believe in your gawd is wrong and stupid
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
Fine, so why did your dragon make children as atheists? Now I believe in the existence of dragons. Or at least now I believe in your christ psychosis
@Counfounded It doesn't matter what entity you ascribe my ownership of… the fault in your statement is that children are Atheists.
Here you again change the subject. You claimed that by denoting your imaginary friend, I conjectured it into existence. Now you flip-flop to the insane claim that chimps and infants worship your gawd even without your brainwashing. Your quote:
@Counfounded Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.
Why don't they worship Bal, or Amun Ra like you do? In fact you worship AMEN Ra at the end of every prayer because your brainwashing is so complete you don't question the correct deity to bribe, which in any case is a pagan ritual
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2015
Posted by Stumpy on July 27, 2014, expert consensus builder & authority in all matters relating to Funny Farm Science. Click on the link at the bottom of this post to verify he made this post to me. Anything else anybody thinks he may be a consensus builder on with this kind of attitude?

"@benni-haha

ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015

Actually dragons are as rational an explanation as any, all things being equal


You'd have to give a generic definition of dragon to back that up. Since dragons are generally accepted to be organic, living creatures, your relief that they are a rational explanation of how the universe was created says a great deal about your logic skills.
Why? You presupposed the condition "all things being equal." That means you will freely accept ANY explanation. Again you are backpeddling. My explanations are not acceptable to you because I'm not part of your inner brainwashed circle. After all you can do or change anything you want anytime like your gawd, correct? All things are not equally plausible, such as your invisible imaginary skyfairy running shit, or a poster suffering from delusions actually being correct because he shares his delusion with a group of mentally ill
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
You did not require sentience. Like every christ psychotic, when proven fallacious you change the definitions. Again your claim that living things all believe in your gawd is wrong and stupid


Yes, I did. Terms like belief, ignorance and knowledge dictate that we are only talking about sentient thought.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
Here you again change the subject. You claimed that by denoting your imaginary friend, I conjectured it into existence. Now you flip-flop to the insane claim that chimps and infants worship your gawd even without your brainwashing. Your quote:


@Counfounded Not exactly true. Children are born ignorant. They can't choose not to believe in God until they learn what the concept of god is.


I'm not the one changing the subject. The subject is that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers. That's just basic logic.

Why don't they worship Bal, or Amun Ra like you do? In fact you worship AMEN Ra at the end of every prayer because your brainwashing is so complete you don't question the correct deity to bribe, which in any case is a pagan ritual


And again, back to arguing religion instead of god.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
You did not require sentience. Like every christ psychotic, when proven fallacious you change the definitions. Again your claim that living things all believe in your gawd is wrong and stupid
@Confonded Yes, I did. Terms like belief, ignorance and knowledge dictate that we are only talking about sentient thought.
Wrong. A library has knowledge but it is as sentient as your gawd. A rock is ignorant but then again so are you. You made the hilariously stupid claim that children and chimps are born deluded believing in your particular imaginary skyfairy. Even your gawd demands "You shall worship no other gods before me" which proves that even your gawd acknowledges other gods are wandering about in your imaginary world. Again in what neurons is this preprogramming reside exactly? Have you done experiments proving belief for your particular gawd encoded in chimp DNA?
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
Why? You presupposed the condition "all things being equal." That means you will freely accept ANY explanation.


Wrong again. Any explanation that can't be disproved for events that don't have a provable alternate explanation, yes. I've already explained why your belief that dragons created the universe doesn't hold up based on current scientific knowledge.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
Why? You presupposed the condition "all things being equal." That means you will freely accept ANY explanation.
@Confounded Wrong again. Any explanation that can't be disproved for events that don't have a provable alternate explanation, yes. I've already explained why your belief that dragons created the universe doesn't hold up based on current scientific knowledge.
The only thing you proved wrong is your grammar
I'm not the one changing the subject. The subject is that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers. That's just basic logic.
If chimps and children do not believe in your gawd, then they are nonbelievers. So you claim they are born believing in your particular gawd and not Baha'i, Candomblé, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Rastafari, Santeria, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Unitarianism or Zoroastrianism
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
@Confonded Yes, I did. Terms like belief, ignorance and knowledge dictate that we are only talking about sentient thought.


Wrong. A library has knowledge but it is as sentient as your gawd


Wrong again. Libraries have information.

knowledge
Top 1000 frequently used words
Syllabification: knowl·edge
Pronunciation: /ˈnälÉ�j

/
Definition of knowledge in English:
noun
1Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
@Confonded Yes, I did. Terms like belief, ignorance and knowledge dictate that we are only talking about sentient thought.


Wrong. A library has knowledge but it is as sentient as your gawd
@Confounded Wrong again. Libraries have information.

knowledge
Top 1000 frequently used words
Syllabification: knowl·edge
Pronunciation: /ˈnälÉÄ�ď��ď��j

/
Definition of knowledge in English:
noun
1Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:
Wrong. Black holes have information. Libraries have knowledge with codes of effective behavior and understanding. Granted they also have fiction, as for example your gawd. Computers have knowledge, yet they don't believe in your gawd. So yet again you are just making up garbage on a science site because your brain is stuck in the bronze age
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
A rock is ignorant but then again so are you. You made the hilariously stupid claim that children and chimps are born deluded believing in your particular imaginary skyfairy. Even your gawd demands "You shall worship no other gods before me" which proves that even your gawd acknowledges other gods are wandering about in your imaginary world. Again in what neurons is this preprogramming reside exactly? Have you done experiments proving belief for your particular gawd encoded in chimp DNA?


And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact. And you also continue to make huge assumptions about this "gawd" you keep claiming I own.
DarkLordKelvin
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, why is there still hydrogen for the stars to burn
@Losik In AWT it's recycled: the photons and neutrinos and scalar waves of dark matter, into which the galaxies evaporate are condensing at the free space between them and occasionally form a new galaxies there. From the perspective of dense aether model the galaxies are just a giant density fluctuations of vacuum which do evaporate and condense - well, like any other density fluctuations. They're just pretty large and as such structured. AWT provides the explanation of mechanism, which prohibits the condensation of matter evaporated into radiation in close vicinity of existing galaxies - in this way the matter remains spread rather evenly across the visible universe.


Can you please provide a reference to literature articles on AWT and "dense aether model"?
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
@Confounded And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact.
That's a profoundly stupid statement. Either they are believing or they are not believing, unless you claim they are quantum wavefunctions. Brains are like software. They can have many patterns but they always have some pattern. You claim is as stupid as saying a box cannot be empty because it is not yet filled with nothing
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
@Confounded And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact.
That's a profoundly stupid statement. Either they are believing or they are not believing, unless you claim they are quantum wavefunctions. Brains are like software. They can have many patterns but they always have some pattern. You claim is as stupid as saying a box cannot be empty because it is not yet filled with nothing


So, apparently you claim to not believe in sploink.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
@Confounded And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact.
That's a profoundly stupid statement. Either they are believing or they are not believing, unless you claim they are quantum wavefunctions. Brains are like software. They can have many patterns but they always have some pattern. You claim is as stupid as saying a box cannot be empty because it is not yet filled with nothing


Why do you believe Leonardo Da Vinci believed that the Higgs Boson did not exist?
paganscientist
3 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
A metaphor. Consider a plane with your eyes as a plane level point. The point has no dimension and can see nothing. As long as the plane remains flat there is no consciousness. Now your eye rises above the surrounding plane. You become conscious of the plane which now has a bump with you on top. Other waves and bumps influence the plane and now you have a complex universe. Consciousness has created this universe.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
@Confounded And now you have resorted to lying about what I've said. I've said several times now that children can neither be believers nor nonbelievers, which just a simple fact.
That's a profoundly stupid statement. Either they are believing or they are not believing, unless you claim they are quantum wavefunctions. Brains are like software. They can have many patterns but they always have some pattern. You claim is as stupid as saying a box cannot be empty because it is not yet filled with nothing
So, apparently you claim to not believe in sploink.
A neural engram could be randomly patterned to believe in sploink, Amun Ra or even you. The point is that neural nets should be adapted toward effective behavior, whatever their initial configuration. There are an infinite quantity of noises you call belief, and few patterns forged by productive behavior+consistency. These neural configurations embed understanding and knowledge, and resist delusion
Losik
Feb 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TKO
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
Looking at any ATOM, tell me how it really works ... anyone? Yes we know about protons, electrons nucleus ... all revolving around. But how does any ATOM really do what it does?
The mysteries are not just in Space - they are as close to you as an Electron microscope, Nuclear microscope, or Nano microscope. The pursuit of the structure of the atom has occupied many areas of chemistry and physics in perhaps - dare I say it - one of the greatest contributions of modern science to date.
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
So, Jim.......is Einstein wrong in his General Relativity when he makes the following statement:

Nenni: I am a doctor of engineering, so I am very happy with Newton's theory. In fact, I designed almost 100 bridges based on his theory and all these bridges are standing (so I am not in the jail while talking to you...lol). Having said that, we all know the limitations of Newton's theory. The same approach applies to Einstein's theory. If anybody tries to find the time zero or edge of universe with his theory, that person is making mistakes. The new discover is telling people that there is no origin or edge of universe.
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
Benni: Sorry I misspelled your name.
conradg
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
Very amused to come here following a link on Big Bang theory, to find heated arguments about God.

Problem is, God and religion aren't forms of science. Even casting off the popular forms, and looking beyond the mythologies, God simply isn't a scientific proposition to be investigated by the scientific method. It's an approach to reality through the subjective dimension, not the objective. If the two have correspondences, well and good. But the reasons, and the logic, for God are subjective, not objective. Some are good reasons, some are not, but their intersection with science and objective matters is not direct. It's experientially subjective. There are lots of reasons to call what is found subjectively "God". The problem is that popular religion likes to objectify itself, and science likes to pound on religion when it does so. All fair and well, even well deserved. Just as silly as when science-minded people like to propound about consciousness, or claim atheism is true.
conradg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
"Yes, we have consensus regarding cold fusion, global warming, big bang model or antigravity drives - and the universities full of extremely smart and educated ignorants. Do we have something more?"

All three of those things are examples of "consensus" being based on a woefully incomplete understanding of the actual physics behind them, how they may or may not work, and how the world and the universe goes about its very strange business. Give science a break, it's still very young and most of the easy problems have been solved. Hard problems like these may in many cases require an understanding of physics not yet achieved. It's hardly controversial that, as Lord Kelvin and others discovered, we are still very far from understanding everything.
Losik
Feb 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
It's experientially subjective. There are lots of reasons to call what is found subjectively "God".
That is deism which is generally not a problem. The problem is that large swaths of retards believe their imaginary friends are real, and by agency their playmate metastasizes into some omnipotent personal gawd that gives a crap about their daily affairs. This is a state of psychosis which society currently permits, much as bullying, smoking and wife beating were ignored in the past. These brainwashed morons reproduce like bunnies then come on Internet boards with their bronze age bullshiyte. Then need to be periodically pruned wherever they sprout or the science garden becomes overrun and neglected
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
Who are these science deniers? BB is settled science. There's a consensus!
Yes, we have consensus regarding cold fusion, global warming, big bang model or antigravity drives - and the universities full of extremely smart and educated ignorants. Do we have something more? BTW The shaking consensus regarding black holes is AdS/CFT dual counterpart of Big Bang models - once you introduce the quantum mechanics into relativity models, then the predictions will change a lot, because these two theories differ by http://en.wikiped...astrophe in their predictions of cosmological constant and/or density of vacuum. So you cannot be sure with anything, once you introduce the quantum mechanics into Big Bang model in any form.


It's a joke, son. You missed it.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2015
So, Jim.......is Einstein wrong in his General Relativity when he makes the following statement:

Nenni: I am a doctor of engineering
Very good Jim. I have 6 years of Engineering school education in Electrical & Nuclear Engineering, majored in Electrical. I can design a nuclear reactor system.

Having said that, we all know the limitations of Newton's theory. The same approach applies to Einstein's theory
I didn't know there was an "approach" that applies to Einstein's theory in GR in the same manner as Newton's limitations on gravity.

If anybody tries to find the time zero or edge of universe with his theory, that person is making mistakes. The new discover is telling people that there is no origin or edge of universe.
I can follow every Differential Equation in Einstein's GR & I haven't seen anything whereby I could conclude I'm "making mistakes", the reason being that the math looks flawless for the concept of an entropic universe.
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
@Benni:

By "approach" I meant that we can not use GR outside its useful limitation, when the edge of universe approaches infinite. Just like we could not use Newton's theory to calculate the impact of light with a atom.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2015
@Benni:

By "approach" I meant that we can not use GR outside its useful limitation, when the edge of universe approaches infinite. Just like we could not use Newton's theory to calculate the impact of light with a atom.

Ok, I do understand your point. But my point being that Einstein in using the geometric description of "quasi-spherical" in his GR is unambiguously stating that the universe has an edge. Else if it does not have an edge (boundary), entropy can never be established for the continuing distribution of energy in a closed system as we presently observe is occurring, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Any thoughts about that?
goce2014
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
All i can say after this - thanks to all .
I love you
Here's why:
vπ = √MG / r which is exactly 7832m / s or 7.832 km / s

do you see the deference ?
TKO
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
Exotic states materialize with supercomputers

Scientists used supercomputers to find a new class of materials that possess an exotic state of matter known as the quantum spin Hall effect.

( Physics humor - A more Exotic State than Minnesota, I presume ... )

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
VCRAGAIN
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015
well - so the big bang is now getting shoved aside - 'the math doesn't work?' -
ah, and that redshift theory of distance - redshifted bodies appearing in front of other bodies
rather puts that to bed too, and that rocky hard comet we just saw with our own eyes - SO - you have to think again - did it occur to anybody that just maybe inventing mathematical formulas to 'force-fit' your theories may not be the way to determine what you are looking at?
You are looking at huge seas of plasma, with Electrical fields that arrange it in twirling strings, and you CANNOT have magnetism without Electricity We don't need dark matter, dark energy to 'fill in the blanks' then. Sounds to me like the beginning of the end of Astronomy as has been proposed for the past 60 or more years - let's see didn't even Einstein get to the point of realizing that his proposed relativity was actually not real ? Go back to Halton Aarp - he was correct! Try plasma-universe.com for a start.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

In the beginning, spinning (G)eodesically (O)rganized (D)ata added 1 + 1 and got - a new 1 (but with a different value)...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
[Hey.. didn't I say way back in the beginning of this thread that is gonna be fun to watch? ...:-)
mburger
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
PaganSceintist:
You are on the right track!
As for other comment that we progress science with consensus, NONSENSE, science is progressed with data. 3-D Worlder's who cannot even do basic arithmetic, babbling on about the Easter Bunny, religious quackery, please move on. Big Bang was dreamed up by good upstanding church going physicists and mathematicians from Yale, Harvard, Caltech, MIT and Stanford.
These scholars desperately wanted the "Origins Formula" to comply with their faith (God made the universe in 6 days and sat on his ass the 7th) but could not fake the math, so the consensus was, he created it all in the INSTANCE, therefore necessitating it all came from nothing. We called this science. LMFAO !!!
These days the 13 year old with the 3 DVD set of the Matrix Movie Series has a better relationship with reality and a better education than most. There is a consensus we are living in f*cked up times, what is needed is a consensus of just how really f*cked up it is.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2015
@mburger: I wrote below about 200 posts up

"Hey there...the Biblical account of Creation is the Big Bang! Have you never sat down with a checklist to compare the "stretching" & "inflation" of the two hypotheses of the beginning stages of the universe? In the BB it all came into existence in a flash of an explosion the same as Creation.

So if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory?
...yeah, just my point, they're the same.

Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written, to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.

A small horde of astrophysicists are just beginning to sound the alarm bells that the James Webb telescope with its infrared spectrometry, will in just a few years hence take a mask off a universe heretofore unimagined. Cosmology will go through a rebirth when the JWT takes pictures of galaxies on the other side of that Primordial gas.
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
Sorry above I tried to write "So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god has belief" but this three minute editing timeout stopped my progress
conradg
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
"That is deism which is generally not a problem. The problem is that large swaths of retards believe their imaginary friends are real, and by agency their playmate metastasizes into some omnipotent personal gawd that gives a crap about their daily affairs."

I have no problem with theism, as long as it recognizes that theism is just the way Deism looks on a personal level. It's the projection of authority and violent dualism onto the subjective personal dimension that causes most of the trouble. And misses the point in both directions. Which is the definition of "sin".
ConfoundedSociety
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
So if ya don't buy into the big bang - why buy into the creation theory?
...yeah, just my point, they're the same.

Readers here need to know the purpose this article was written, to put the scientific community on notice that they need to begin weaning themselves off BB because it is so close to Creation.


The Big Bang has nothing to do with creation theory. What caused the Big Bang is another matter. If you believe it was God, that's creation. If you attribute another cause, then it's not. However, I don't really doubt you assertion that scientist don't like the Big Bang theory solely because it is too close to creationism.

The universe as we observe it makes sense when you derive it from a starting point. It really doesn't if you think it's always been here.
ConfoundedSociety
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
Sorry above I tried to write "So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god has belief" but this three minute editing timeout stopped my progress


No. You claimed that. Without sentient thought, there is no belief or disbelief.
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 12, 2015
Sorry above I tried to write "So you claim a worm which has no knowledge of god has belief" but this three minute editing timeout stopped my progress
@Confounded No. You claimed that. Without sentient thought, there is no belief or disbelief.

Your grammar is broken so it's impossible to comprehend what you intended to convey, assuming you had such a thing

In any case belief only requires action and memory. So calculators and animals have beliefs. Even maths theorems can have beliefs or hunches written in

The point is that a newborn is not configured with memory engrams to worship your gawd. That requires brainwashing, which is child abuse. They have a belief because their neural nets must have some point in phase space, but that belief does not at all involve your imaginary friends. Indeed their default belief is so symmetric that it provokes immense curiosity and endless questioning to break symmetry: the opposite of religious indoctrination
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015
In any case belief only requires action and memory. So calculators and animals have beliefs. Even maths theorems can have beliefs or hunches written in


I understand that the need to cling to your religion drives you to such irrational statements. In the real world, belief requires a conscious decision by a sentient mind. Your claim that Alexander the Great chose to believe Neptune (the planet) did not exist tells us a great deal about where your thought processes are.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015
In any case belief only requires action and memory. So calculators and animals have beliefs. Even maths theorems can have beliefs or hunches written in


I understand that the need to cling to your religion drives you to such irrational statements. In the real world, belief requires a conscious decision by a sentient mind. Your claim that Alexander the Great chose to believe Neptune (the planet) did not exist tells us a great deal about where your thought processes are.
Is that what they taught you at bye-bull college? And where is my region? Up there in the clouds with your gawd? You must really enjoy just making up stories and fairy tales. Are you in some tiny town that closes at 4pm every day?

BTW I never wrote anything about Alexander the Great. Never met the guy. Perhaps it was one of your imaginary friends whispering in your ear
Johnpaily
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015
http://www.iflsci...big-bang
What is eternal is Information or Light. The Big Bang and Universe needs to be understood from Biological point. Universe transforms the whole system and conquers time through information or light unfolding. Here the first and second law of energy unites thus uniting all developments in science and bridging it with spiritual knowledge of the ancient world– https://www.scrib...-Complex
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2015
The Big Bang has nothing to do with creation theory. I really doubt your assertion that scientist don't like the Big Bang theory solely because it is too close to creationism


The two are EXACTLY the same.......do the checklist like I suggested. Just why do you think there are so many cosmologists so hopeful that the James Webb telescope spectrometry will find galaxies on the other side of that vaunted Primordial Cloud? It puts a lot of distance between them & Creationist/Big Bang Cosmology...........uuuhhhh, a little tongue in cheek here, they're praying for it.

Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2015
The universe as we observe it makes sense when you derive it from a starting point. It really doesn't if you think it's always been here.
.....so then does this mean you agree with the below quote directly from Einstein's GR?

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015
@Benni:

Ok, I do understand your point. But my point being that Einstein in using the geometric description of "quasi-spherical" in his GR is unambiguously stating that the universe has an edge. Else if it does not have an edge (boundary), entropy can never be established for the continuing distribution of energy in a closed system as we presently observe is occurring, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Any thoughts about that?

Smart people should know that what we know is only limited to the observations we current have. GR fits our CURRENT knowledge very well (just like Newton's fit well 100 years ago). Once our observations advances, we will discover that the limitations of current theory and improve it. All the indications are that there was no origin or boundary of universe (although it has not been proved yet, and will never been 100% proved - in other words, we can never discover all and everything of the universe - it is a infinite process).
Benni
2 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2015
@Benni:

Smart people should know that what we know is only limited to the observations we current have. GR fits our CURRENT knowledge very well (just like Newton's fit well 100 years ago). Once our observations advances, we will discover that the limitations of current theory and improve it. All the indications are that there was no origin or boundary of universe (although it has not been proved yet, and will never been 100% proved - in other words, we can never discover all and everything of the universe - it is a infinite process).


..........so do you know what the Primordial Gas Cloud is? What do you the the ramifications for current Cosmology will be if the James Webb telescope discovers galaxies beyond it? I think it will be the spearhead leading the charge to ditch the Big Bang.

ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015
Is that what they taught you at bye-bull college?


You probably should have paid at least 12 year old to write for you instead of an 8 year old. "Buy-bull" would have actually been funny and made sense.
ConfoundedSociety
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015
The Big Bang has nothing to do with creation theory. I really doubt your assertion that scientist don't like the Big Bang theory solely because it is too close to creationism


The two are EXACTLY the same.......do the checklist like I suggested. Just why do you think there are so many cosmologists so hopeful that the James Webb telescope spectrometry will find galaxies on the other side of that vaunted Primordial Cloud? It puts a lot of distance between them & Creationist/Big Bang Cosmology...........uuuhhhh, a little tongue in cheek here, they're praying for it.


Why did you edit my post to make it look like I said the opposite of what I did? I said that I don't doubt your assertion.

And they aren't the same. Just because there was a Big bang doesn't mean there's a god.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015
@Benni:


..........so do you know what the Primordial Gas Cloud is? What do you the the ramifications for current Cosmology will be if the James Webb telescope discovers galaxies beyond it? I think it will be the spearhead leading the charge to ditch the Big Bang.


If James Webb could not discover galaxies beyond it, something other more advanced telescope (may be not in our life time) will. It is just a matter of time. The ramification is that there is always galaxies beyond the galaxies we just discovered, which means the universe has no boundary, My 2 cents.

@Benni:
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015
....so then does this mean you agree with the below quote directly from Einstein's GR?


Considering you've cut and pasted that in response to three entirely different posts tells me that you don't understand what it means.

It's irrelevant to the point I made, since it's referring to whether or not the universe has a finite size, not a finite past.

As for the paragraph itself, space would need to be infinite in one way or the other (either truly infinite or curved back on itself so that you can truly travel forever in "one direction" and never reach the edge) or expanding at or above the speed of light (relative to anyone standing inside the universe.)

Imagine the "edge" of a finite universe. Imagine a star there. Where does the light go?
Losik
Feb 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015
@Losik: You are right. It is childish to believe that there is an edge of universe. It is also mathematically impossible. Because universe includes EVERYTHING EVERYEHERE, if there were an edge, then the other side of edge should also be part of the universe, so the assumed edge is not an edge....
Just like tying to say 10^9999999999 is the largest number, but that number +1 is even larger, and so on...
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015


The universe as we observe it makes sense when you derive it from a starting point. It really doesn't if you think it's always been here.


I like this. You pointed out "as we observe" which is very important.

In the future, people will discover farther and farther, and the notion that there is boundary (of universe) will not stand. Once that happens, people will know that there is no centre of universe either. "Single point" or BB will become outdated topics.
mburger
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015
Like the proverbial dog chasing his tail we struggle to determine the relationship elements of what we are able to perceive, and blissfully ignore what we can't observe from this material perspective. All matter had a higher vibrational state (out of our spectral range as well) before it was expressed here and only examining what is here, will tell us nothing of the creation manifestation process or the reality modeling elements prior to physicality. To fathom a 7-D model from a 3-D perspective will be frustrating. Happy Valentines Day!
mburger
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015
But that is not to say there won't be some folks who won't hesitate to bang their heads against it all day long :)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2015
But that is not to say there won't be some folks who won't hesitate to bang their heads against it all day long :)

......on what.......a Valentine day heart? That won't hurt..... lol :)
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015
But that is not to say there won't be some folks who won't hesitate to bang their heads against it all day long :)

.....hope my head will not bump into the edge of universe....I know HE would rescue me...lol...happy V-day.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015
The edge of the universe is the point where you begin to run into copies of things in your universe, as there are only so may configurations possible with 1*10^81 particles. Copies will be encountered at the horizon. At that stage you have entered the multiverse. The new universe will appear as only one universe due to spacetime distortion caused by the huge interval of space your traveled, which also resets your timeline beyond the age of your old universe
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2015
Got any idea how these people ended up on a science site?
@MandoZink
interesting question... methinks, IMHO-
they know it is SAFE to TROLL here as the MODS don't moderate, really (benni, rc, cd, antiG, the eu... etc)
so they're protected, thus it spreads by word of mouth

for some, it is simply TROLLING a public site (shooty, antiG)
there are the people who think they know something but don't (rc, benni)
there are those who simply LIE about their abilities and education (waterprophet/ALCHE, Benni)
then there is the pseudoscience acolyte promoting their favorite religion/view (cd, reset, hannesalfvie, rc, zephir, reg mundy ) they are wanting to SOUND smart, but failing

others are highly educated but branch out to learn because they're curious (AA_P, Thermodynamics, Q-Star)

mostly i think it is the TROLL mentality, as it seems to breed here IYKWIM

notice no TROLL here is actually trying to push their pseudoscience on AAAS/ScienceMag?

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2015
Poor malignant lump of a Stump. He's "been away", and obviously missed all he latest articles which have proved him and all those "smart peoples" and "Idiotic bot-voting Uncle Iras" WEONG and me RIGHT. Poor Stump still tries to delude himself and others that I am he "roll" when it has become obvious he and his "gang of idiots and trolls" are in no position in science and reality to judge anything or anyone, simple because hey neither comprehend deeply, nor care to, before making asses of themselves by continuing he farce of calling me the troll when it is him and his idiot gang who have already well and oft proven themselves to be the most obviously ignorant trolls anywhere on the net. Poor poor malignant lump of a useless Stump. Him "being away" hasn't done anything to improve his character, knowledge, judgement or relevance, either in science or in humanity discourse. Sad.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2015
Reads just like a perfect description of the so-called science of climatology
@benniTROLL
there is no control through fear... that is your own fear of the science which you cannot comprehend
just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true
the science shows us that
the king of Copy & Paste
just like a fearful idiot, you dislike being exposed as a fraud: i back up my claims and interpretations of the evideince with actual links to evideince, unlike you, who speculates wildly and then appeals to self-authority "i'm a nuclear engineer, so it must be right"
RULE 37, you idiot!
Posted by
and of course, anyone semi-literate can read that it says "IF i wanted"... you even support this with the link!
are you stupid or illiterate?
RULE 37

epic failure for benni troll

PS, the only difference between you and RC is that you log in from different places and you have different log-in names

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2015
Poor malignant blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah WEONG blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah. Him "being away" blah blah blah blah.
@rc
that is about as much as i read
[nice spelling job there... you know spellcheck is FREE right?]

https://www.googl...af4331c2
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2015
@ Stumpy

Below in quotes posted by Stumpy on July 27, 2014, expert consensus builder & authority in all matters relating to Funny Farm Science. Click on the link at the bottom of this post to verify he made this post to me. Anything else anybody thinks he may be a consensus builder on with this kind of attitude?

"@benni-haha

ROTFLMFAO
you DO REALISE that if I wanted to steal your info, I would just ping your server and get your internet IP which would give me the ability to go right to your doorstep? Easy since I KNOW your login here AND when you are on."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Hey there El Stumpo, care to repeat that threat again about committing identify theft against me followed up by threats to confront me personally at my "doorstep"? You, the King of Copy & Paste at this site are the worst source this site has ever seen for an excuse as someone interested in science, along with your foul mouth & record of profanity more conducive to a porn site.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2015
@kochevnik:
The edge of the universe is the point where you begin to run into copies of things in your universe, as there are only so may configurations possible with 1*10^81 particles. Copies will be encountered at the horizon.
That is already happening here in our observable energy-space volume/processing dynamics/products, at all scales. Any and all possible energy-space perturbations/features which persist long enough to be directly or indirectly 'observed' (or otherwise 'experienced/identified' by an observer via some physical 'observational construct' as distinct products/configurations etc) will happen and be the 'templates' for the full range of persistent occurrences. All 'variations on the themes' copying and cycling/recycling already occurs all around from local to infinity extent. No need for hair-splitting 'multiverse' distinctions, because it's all one infinite eternal universal system processing through all possible stages/epochs of local/infinite contexts.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2015
@Posted by that poor poor Stumpy to Benni:
PS, the only difference between you and RC is that you log in from different places and you have different log-in names


And the only difference between this poor poor Stumpy and a rotting tree stump is that the latter has more innate intelligence and integrity...and doesn't need to resort to insane stalking, half-truths, outright lies and just plain reality-denial as 'a way of life'.

Poor Stumpy still hasn't apologized for calling me a troll when I was RIGHT and he/his "smart peoples" WRONG. :)

The mainstream articles are all here at physorg for anyone to read and confirm I was right all along. But what does this dumber-than-tree-stump Stumpy do?...he still denies reality and facts while continuing his pathetically moronic pretense that he has any intelligent or original, let alone 'lucid', contribution to make to science and humanity discourse here or elsewhere.

He just trolls and spams the internet as "Stumpy the STUPID".
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2015
Hey there El Stumpo, care to repeat that threat again about committing identify theft against me followed up by threats to confront me personally at my "doorstep"?
@benniMORON
Nice irrelevant distraction from your lack of ability to demonstrate any education, troll boy

like i said... IF, you illiterate geriatric windbag TROLL
learn to read
https://www.whois.net/

@Posted by that poor poor Stumpy to Benni:
TROLL FEST- i will leave you two lovers alone
Especially considering they're both illiterate and neither can read!
LMFAO

https://www.googl...!6m1!1e1

PS- to BOTH
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Thanks for making me popular, getting me published and providing hours of posts for my research
I couldn't have done it without yall (and the eu)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2015
Hey there El Stumpo:

Great Copy & Paste expertise, America's housewives are being given one dandy of a run for their money by you these days.......the only expertise a retired old codger of a firefighter like you has ever demonstrated on this site.
redmudislander
not rated yet Feb 13, 2015

from: Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
Feb 09, 2015

"If inflation isn't eternal backwards, likely it has fluctuated into being - the universe is zero energy and inflation is a quantum scalar field after all - and it has then done so an infinite number of times, making an infinite set of eternal multiverses that stretches back and forward into eternity."

Shouldn't that read, " . . . an infinite set of 'temporal' multiverses . . . " ?
drf30_1999
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015
OK all talk of creation aside. If the above article describes a true theory does that mean it is possible that quantum uncertainty explains the expansion of the universe? And conversely are black holes formed because of the collapse of the quantum wave function of massive numbers of particles in close proximity to each other? I am just a layperson but....
stinsonmarri
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2015
All these scientist do not believe in the CREATORS. So they come with this ridiculous belief in the big bang. This is so childish because it is base on their math theories and Albert Einstein which relates to certain things in space. All of these scientist have never been outer space, nor can man travel to investigate, they just assume. Now here comes scientists who show there is no big bang theory. A car, house, factories, bridges and more are made by man. So we think we can understand the stars and the universe, we can't unless you read it in the Bible. Some one created us and the universe like we create things here on earth. We just did not evolve, wake up people!!!!!
Blessings!
Losik
Feb 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
redmudislander
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2015
Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension.


Um, there is no biblical mention of any witnesses to His resurrection.
Only a discovery in the morning that "the stone" (had been) "rolled away".
kochevnik
5 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2015
@Ren Мathematics is fundamental science, but when is used for speculations, can lead to serious delusions.
Really? Most readers here are more than 12yo, Ren
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2015
@Ren Мathematics is fundamental science, but when is used for speculations, can lead to serious delusions.
Really? Most readers here are more than 12yo, Ren

Any mathematical calculation is only as good as the science behind it, it's the reason I believe in the Differential Equations Einstein uses in his GR.
redmudislander
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2015
" Also ... true Christianity is based on eyewitness accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ was a real, historical person, who had witnesses to His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension."

Um, there is no biblical mention of any witnesses to His resurrection.
Only a discovery in the morning that "the stone" (had been) "rolled away".
someone11235813
4 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2015
that's where the word Atom comes from BTW - doesn't mean it can't be split)


Technically speaking the atom cannot be split in the sense that it keeps it's elemental identity.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2015
Hey there El Stumpo:
hey there back, el_benjiTROLL
have you figured out how to comment to the admin with the PM's down?

did you ever find that "contact" link at the bottom of every freakin PO page?

you never did tell me about how all that worked out for you... or why you couldn't figure it out being an engineer and all...
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv
thanks

http://www.sci-en...-flags2/

ANd hey, how come you couldn't demonstrate your knowledge of differential equations when queried by a physics student?? (thefurlong)

with you going on-and-on about them, and being such a great engineer and all, i thought that would be easy for you. that is what you claim, anyway...

RULE 37

thanks for making it easy to prove you a liar!
DarkLordKelvin
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2015
that's where the word Atom comes from BTW - doesn't mean it can't be split)


Technically speaking the atom cannot be split in the sense that it keeps it's elemental identity.


No, that is not correct ... when an atom is split by nuclear fission, or any other kind of nuclear decay for that matter, then it changes its elemental identity.
mburger
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2015
Humanity is at a critical cross roads. We are an emerging species and have reached this FAIL threshold a few times before and we failed. The question is will we make it this time? The answer is not likely, and these religious wackos posting here are a big part of this fail.
To join the star brothers we will have to kick it up big time.
Exploring outer space is a big part of realizing that potential but before we can do this we need to master some inner space. We have been given a royal flush DNA hand by the designers before us and now the fail will be determined by, "can we utilize these resources?" So called extraneous DNA and atrophied brain chemicals are the key.
Getting out of the fog of nonsense, like the big bang theory is a welcome start, but it really comes down to each of us forming a functional relationship with reality (not presently the norm). Optimism yes, but then every time it emerges, a 100 religious Easter bunny idiots drown out the prospect of any progress.
Johnpaily
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2015
This in way denies Big Bang and Physical Creation. This is in line with first law of energy, which says that nothing is created or destroyed and that the universe functions on transformation process. However, time direction or second law of energy is an inevitable reality we observe. This necessitates that we invent Big Bang creation as a spiritual process of enlightenment and transformation leading humanity from death to life, darkness to light as the ancient spiritualist understood it. The physical cosmos appears to remain the same but its spiritual content seems to go through a seven to eight thousand year cycle of light and darkness. Explore the link for further exploration- https://www.scrib...-Process
HeloMenelo
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2015
"Hey there El Stumpo:

hey there back, el_benjiTROLL
have you figured out how to comment to the admin with the PM's down?

did you ever find that "contact" link at the bottom of every freakin PO page?

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp ....


Thanks for exposing these dumb clowns for what they are, man they rub it in each time you lay the proof on the table... brilliant..!
jvj-WI-US
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2015
The concept of the universe means everything. It is made up of matter and space. The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made. If the matter is expanding, it is still moving in space, still part of the universe. Is there a theory of how the space and matter was created?

The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.

One of the laws of physics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed... If this is so, the universe and it's contents could not have been created, and can not end.

ConfoundedSociety
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2015
The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made.


So?

The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.


Ummm… But you think It's OK for the universe to never have been created? You don't even realize the hypocrisy there, do you?
jvj-WI-US
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2015
Isn't there also hypocrisy in saying that the universe had to be created, but the creator was always there? If you have rules about the universe's beginnings, those same rules must be applied to the creator of that universe.

Having an infinite loop of creators being created, is the same as not having a beginning. Existence would still exist, just in a different form. That would be like explaining that a tree came from an acorn, but not saying where the acorn came from. You would not have explained where the tree came from, just how it changed.

I am not trying to shame or downgrade anyones opinion. I just want to offer that stating the universe started as a dot, does not explain how it started. It just offers a different configuration. The dot is still there with no explanation of how it started.
jscroft
5 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2015
... these most insightful comments are getting systematically downvoted, because the proponents of mainstream physics fears of premature lost of their jobs.... Today the scientific people systematically ignore the existing understanding instead for to save their necks.


@Losik, I'm not sure this is fair. While in principle it's true that a single observation can falsify centuries of water-tight theorizing, in practice it isn't that simple. The observation has to be TRUE, for one thing, and for another it has to be a consequence of a mechanism that ACTUALLY conflicts with theory (instead of an unguessed third option, like the long-term effects of anisotropic thermal radiation from a space probe).

The confirmation of new physics requires a certain degree of enthusiasm. I get it. But it doesn't follow that those who don't share your enthusiasm are blind Luddites out to protect their fat sinecures. The hard man to convince is the one you WANT to win over.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2015
Isn't there also hypocrisy in saying that the universe had to be created, but the creator was always there?


No. It's saying either is possible. And no one is saying that the universe HAD to be created, simply that, based on current observations, that makes the most sense.

If you have rules about the universe's beginnings, those same rules must be applied to the creator of that universe.


Why? First, no one disclaiming either must be true, only that they believe it be true. Second, what rules are you referring to? That something can exist without being created or could have been created? How is that a rule?
ConfoundedSociety
4 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2015
Having an infinite loop of creators being created, is the same as not having a beginning. Existence would still exist, just in a different form. That would be like explaining that a tree came from an acorn, but not saying where the acorn came from. You would not have explained where the tree came from, just how it changed.


Again, I'm missing your point, apparently. If you are comfortable saying the universe has always been here, you must be comfortable with the claim that any creator has always been. And the Big Bang doesn't necessitate a beginning either. That's just as far back as we can see.

The acorn was on the ground when we came across it. Where did it come from? We could make a guess based on what we can observe around it, but we can't know since we didn't witness the event that put it there. We know acorns enough to realize that it didn't used to be there (or the tree would have grown long ago) but can only speculate on it's origin.
j______
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2015
infinity is self creating, looked at in a certain light. if you assume infinity can exist, infinity contains everything, all time, all at once. that doesn't make it "long" it makes it "short". what's important is that it'd also contains nothing. impossible.

to resolve that paradox, we as observers have to have a universe and it needs to be observed, otherwise it couldn't be infinity, it would just be nothing.

the "big bang" is the possible, the "big crunch", total entropy, when everything is nothing is a return to paradox. our observable laws, electro-magnetisim, particle/wave, why the edges distort, follow logically from the paradox of the infinite. quantum mechanics doesn't mean there are alternate simultaneous realities, but that as long as the laws are followed everything else is fair game.

i'm not dogmatic, but it's fun, horrible and wonderful and really explains the diversity of human perceptions. we're just processing waves that couldn't exist, but have to. :)
bbbbwindows
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2015
The entire field of cosmology and the "Big Bang" proponents should prepare to rethink their "theories".
The newest data coming in from Chandra is confirming the work of Halton Arp. Arp was a student of Edmund Hubble and worked at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. His book "Seeing Red" provided substantial proof that red shift was an intrinsic property of age and not distance/velocity.
This one fact will invalidate the "Big Bang Theory" as well as an inflationary universe. I find this comforting as these concepts made no sense whatsoever.
The latest radio telescope data is also validating the electric model of the universe put forth by plasma physicists. Gravity based theories such as black holes, neutron stars and dark matter will be the next to fall.
Maybe then cosmology can return to being an observationally based science with experimental confirmation. It currently resembles a religion with it's foundation being unproven mathematical constructs.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2015
Again, I'm missing your point, apparently. If you are comfortable saying the universe has always been here, you must be comfortable with the claim that any creator has always been. And the Big Bang doesn't necessitate a beginning either. That's just as far back as we can see.

The acorn was on the ground when we came across it. Where did it come from? We could make a guess based on what we can observe around it, but we can't know since we didn't witness the event that put it there. We know acorns enough to realize that it didn't used to be there (or the tree would have grown long ago) but can only speculate on it's origin.

Too existential.
It came from the oak tree in your yard. I've been hit on the head by them as I mow mine...
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015
Too existential.
It came from the oak tree in your yard. I've been hit on the head by them as I mow mine...


Not existential at all. Just following the previous metaphor. Please explain what the oak tree is in this metaphor. Sounds like God.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2015
Too existential.
It came from the oak tree in your yard. I've been hit on the head by them as I mow mine...


Not existential at all. Just following the previous metaphor. Please explain what the oak tree is in this metaphor. Sounds like God.

Sounds like a Universe that recreates itself via looping. Why all the "where did the Universe come from?" speculation when it's tuff enuff to take in all that is here, already?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015
Apologies for th3e double post.... was "multi-tasking" and apparently not too good at it...
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2015

Sounds like a Universe that recreates itself via looping. Why all the "where did the Universe come from?" speculation when it's tuff enuff to take in all that is here, already?


Because that's the whole subject of the article.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2015

Sounds like a Universe that recreates itself via looping. Why all the "where did the Universe come from?" speculation when it's tuff enuff to take in all that is here, already?


Because that's the whole subject of the article.

who are we, what are we, where did we come from... Where did the Universe come from...
All existentialist crap... that is just an excuse to not get out and get your hands dirty doing the actual work...
Real scientists may not always have it right. But they get up, dust themselves off and get back on that horse until they DO get it right...
That means - quit worrying about the past and focus on the future...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015
The edge of the universe is the point where you begin to run into copies of things in your universe, as there are only so may configurations possible with 1*10^81 particles. Copies will be encountered at the horizon.

Not copies - we're just seeing the back side of the Universe we already live in. It's a big loop...
ConfoundedSociety
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015

who are we, what are we, where did we come from... Where did the Universe come from...
All existentialist crap... that is just an excuse to not get out and get your hands dirty doing the actual work...
Real scientists may not always have it right. But they get up, dust themselves off and get back on that horse until they DO get it right...
That means - quit worrying about the past and focus on the future...


Scientists can't stand leaving something at "we don't know." The Big Bang necessitates that we will never know what happened prior. They don't like it.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2015
Scientists can't stand leaving something at "we don't know."

And that's a bad thing?!?
The Big Bang necessitates that we will never know what happened prior.

I wouldn't bet a lot on that...
They don't like it.

Ahhh.... and you do?
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2015
A metaphor. Consider a plane with your eyes as a plane level point. The point has no dimension and can see nothing. As long as the plane remains flat there is no consciousness. Now your eye rises above the surrounding plane. You become conscious of the plane which now has a bump with you on top. Other waves and bumps influence the plane and now you have a complex universe. Consciousness has created this universe.

I prefer the word awareness to consciousness...
And thru an almost infinite number of sensory mechanisms, "everything" is aware of everything else...
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2015
Please read the research paper!
Universe has no beginning or ending, nor does it have edges (infinite size and time). It has and will always be there. old stars will die and new starts will born....perpetually.
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2015
The entire field of cosmology and the "Big Bang" proponents should prepare to rethink their "theories".
This one fact will invalidate the "Big Bang Theory" as well as an inflationary universe. I find this comforting as these concepts made no sense whatsoever.
The latest radio telescope data is also validating the electric model of the universe put forth by plasma physicists. Gravity based theories such as black holes, neutron stars and dark matter will be the next to fall.
Maybe then cosmology can return to being an observationally based science with experimental confirmation. It currently resembles a religion with it's foundation being unproven mathematical constructs.

This one is absolutely right. It is hard to fine common language here.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2015
Please read the research paper!
Universe has no beginning or ending, nor does it have edges (infinite size and time). It has and will always be there. old stars will die and new starts will born....perpetually.


FYI… just because there's a research paper, doesn't make it true. Even the guys that came up with this want to look into it more. It's all just preliminary. Even if it weren't, there's still no proof.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2015
This one is absolutely right. It is hard to fine common language here.


99% of everything scientists thought they knew at one point or another has been proven false. What makes you think you'll be right the next time?
bbbbwindows
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
There are recent radio telescope images from Chandra (and others) that show quasars in physical contact with galaxies as if they are being produced by them. What's interesting is that each body has a very different red shift. This is direct confirmation of the work done by Halton Arp, a student of Edmund Hubble, while he was at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. His book " Seeing Red " made a convincing case that red shift is a function of age, not velocity or distance.
Carl Sagan made the comment that if this work is verified it would invalidate the data used to propose both the big bang and inflation.
It appears that the "standard model" is not going to survive the new data coming in from missions with advanced technology. Gravity just doesn't appear to have the power to cause planet, star or galaxy formation. Tweaking this theory by adding mathematical constructs such as black holes, neutron stars and dark matter/energy has done a disservice to all cosmologists
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2015
This one is absolutely right. It is hard to fine common language here.


99% of everything scientists thought they knew at one point or another has been proven false. What makes you think you'll be right the next time?

That is why it is difficult to find the 1%. Although you are current in the majority (99%), time will tell.
jim_zhao_cc
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015
The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made.


So?

The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.


Ummm… But you think It's OK for the universe to never have been created? You don't even realize the hypocrisy there, do you?

Any rational person will believe that universe can not be created, and shall not have beginning or ending.
jim_zhao_cc
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015
The concept of the universe means everything. It is made up of matter and space. The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made. If the matter is expanding, it is still moving in space, still part of the universe. Is there a theory of how the space and matter was created?

The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.

One of the laws of physics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed... If this is so, the universe and it's contents could not have been created, and can not end.



Perfect and beautiful statements. We can still see smart people here.
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015
The concept of the universe means everything. It is made up of matter and space. The Big Bang would only explain how the matter in the universe is distributed, not how it was made. If the matter is expanding, it is still moving in space, still part of the universe. Is there a theory of how the space and matter was created?

The universe must not have been created, and has always existed. It defies logic, but must just be accepted. If everything had to be created, what then created the creator? You end up with an endless loop of creator's being created. This endless loop is the same as not having a beginning.

One of the laws of physics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed... If this is so, the universe and it's contents could not have been created, and can not end.



Perfect and beautiful statements. We can still see smart people here.

When you re-invent the wheel, you still have - a wheel...
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
On the subject of creation, there actually might be an endless loop of sorts, analogically speaking, a loop out of time and space (because time is not a factor until it is created along with space and matter) and which factors the presence of mind as the necessary predisposition to the very idea (which after the fact is analyzed as the Premonition) of anything existing at all being so staggeringly awesome and profound into the fractal manifestation of that great impression as the reality in which this fact can be realized.

That's why the greatest amount of this Universe's energy goes into making grandiose impressions. It's how anything gets made.
mburger
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2015
I am truly grateful that we have a lot of young minds engaged in the business of advancing science. The problem is a lot of this youth signal is of a "preppy frequency" and their inexperience wants.
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 24, 2015
On the subject of gravity, sure, let's call it a graviton. That subtle tiniest unit that can be described, one of the many that define spatial volume, and which in a sense can only rationally exist relative to other gravitons, meaning that it has a phase that can be oriented with respect to a near body, and that its phase can be cancelled by the superimposition of a graviton with an opposite orientation to another nearby body, and that these cancellations effectively reduces the volume of the space between them. Gravity is the cancellation of spatial volume between bodies in space. The momentum and inertia of a body are attributes defined by our physics . What we feel when an anvil drops on our heads is the result of what we call "the force of gravity". tch..
mburger
4 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2015
"Senior scientists would be the first to agree that there is no such thing as an absolute scientific explanation of anything. Science is, rather, a method or tool of prediction, relating one or more observations to each other. In physics, this is usually done through the language of mathematics. Our scientific learning is a learning by observation and analysis of this observation. In the sense of penetrating the fundamental essences of things, we really do not understand anything at all." Ra teachings
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2015
Isn't there also hypocrisy in saying that the universe had to be created, but the creator was always there?


No. It's saying either is possible. And no one is saying that the universe HAD to be created, simply that, based on current observations, that makes the most sense.

If you have rules about the universe's beginnings, those same rules must be applied to the creator of that universe.


Why? First, no one disclaiming either must be true, only that they believe it be true. Second, what rules are you referring to? That something can exist without being created or could have been created? How is that a rule?

He was trying to say that universe could not have beginning either because things could not be created (law of physics) or because, if it were created, there was already creator there so there was time before beginning, which means no beginning.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2015
He was trying to say that universe could not have beginning either because things could not be created (law of physics) or because, if it were created, there was already creator there so there was time before beginning, which means no beginning.

Unless - the Universe is the creator, recreating itself...
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Feb 26, 2015
He was trying to say that universe could not have beginning either because things could not be created (law of physics) or because, if it were created, there was already creator there so there was time before beginning, which means no beginning.

Unless - the Universe is the creator, recreating itself...

Which also means no beginning. Mathematically, if you can demonstrate that there is something before the beginning, then there is no beginning.
icouce
not rated yet Feb 28, 2015
But the consensus of 97% of scientists...
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Mar 04, 2015
But the consensus of 97% of scientists...


If we remove the people who have "scientist" jobs but are actually religious, then the consensus of infinite universe would be more than 99%.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2015
@Nonmenon

The objective (observer-independent) reality of external events has two labels:
1.) God
2.) Realism.

Number 1 researches the 'when' (of events) with an infinite timeline.
Number 2 researches the 'where' (of events) with non-locality and locality.

Both 1 and 2 are undefined properties.
Undefined properties are observer-independent.

Your objective reality, the concept that the universe exists with well-defined properties, independent of what we choose to observe and measure is a foregone conclusion.
Joe_Chang
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2015
space is infinity, there is no graviton, no photon, no god particle. light is gravitational wave/pause produced by exited atoms.

if you tell truth in any science forum, you will be banned. if is a fact. proof it yourself at http://fuckedscience.com or http://www.thenak...=54194.0

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Joe_Chang
Mar 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jim_zhao_cc
not rated yet Mar 10, 2015
@ Joe_Chang: People got banned either because they DO NOT tell truth about science, or they speak for GOD (which is not true either).

Most scientists believe that universe is made up of sub-universes, which is made up with galaxies, stars, ...

Universe is infinite. the number of sub-universes are infinite, the number of stars are infinite, ...
jim_zhao_cc
1 / 5 (1) Mar 11, 2015
No Big Bang! Scientists also discovered (from observation) to prove no big bang - they discovered that some galaxies are colliding. If there were big bang, all galaxies would be farther and farther apart and will never collide.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2015
There are recent radio telescope images from Chandra (and others) that show quasars in physical contact with galaxies as if they are being produced by them. What's interesting is that each body has a very different red shift. This is direct confirmation of the work done by Halton Arp, a student of Edmund Hubble, while he was at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. His book " Seeing Red " made a convincing case that red shift is a function of age, not velocity or distance.
Carl Sagan made the comment that if this work is verified it would invalidate the data used to propose both the big bang and inflation.


Fascinating stuff. Would a layperson get anything out of "Seeing Red"? And I wonder if inflation isn't happening, would we be able to do away with the very untidy dark matter and dark energy theories?
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2015
The dark matter and dark energy effects follow from tired light models also. After all, they're already observed, so that every alternative theory must explain these effects somehow too.
jeffensley
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2015
I'm not offering an alternative theory but I've operated under the impression that because of expansion and other cosmic activity that doesn't fit our understanding of how gravity should work, we've had to devise of invisible mass and energy to explain it. If red-shift doesn't necessarily mean an object is moving away from us then I would presume that would rule out expansion.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2015
Your objective reality, the concept that the universe exists with well-defined properties, independent of what we choose to observe and measure is a foregone conclusion.

That's not my notion of 'objective reality', nor is it one backed by facts established by experiment.

Nor is it compatible with your own definition of Realism....

Both [God] and [Realism] are undefined properties.
Undefined properties are observer-independent.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015
What is your definition of 'objective reality"? How does your "notion" differ from the accepted definition or consensus definition?

That's not my notion of 'objective reality', nor is it one backed by facts established by experiment. - N


Of course not. Realism is dead. We agree. God is dead too.

I do not see where we are disagreeing. Enlighten your readership.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
Perhaps I misread your post?

A Realist definition of objective reality would be this... "... the concept that the universe exists with well-defined properties, independent of what we choose to observe and measure",... which you said was "a foregone conclusion",... and so seemingly agreeing with the Realist definition?

Independent Reality does not have well-defined properties of it self, since first we must supply the conceptual structure defining those properties for them to be knowable... i.e. the underlying reality is only a 'particle' or 'wave' to the extent that experimental apparatus and theory makes use of those concepts,... while the underlying reality, of itself, is neither.

Independent objective reality would be unknowable as it is in itself, which is to say as unconceptualized, formless. It can be said to be Objective since it informs experiment, it says "no", as d'Espagnat would say.
TopCat22
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015
The no big bang theory (NBBT) eliminates the need for the Dark Energy postulate.

Dark Energy is postulated to account for the homogeneity of the universe because there would not be enough time in the less than 14 billion years since the postulated big bang occurred for everything to have spread out so evenly. If we interpret instead that everything is flying away faster than the speed of light at the visible BB boundary (BBB) then there was plenty of time up to infinity before the BBB to eliminate the Dark Energy required for inflation. Inflation is then a property of time and space as new space-time is created between every point in space-time inflating everything exponentially.

russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015
Foregone conclusion = A conclusion formed in advance to __________ <------- fill-in
- with literally any meaning human language has to offer..

Realism and God(s) remain undefined.
We do just fine leaving these terms undefined.
We do just fine abandoning these labels.

Independent objective reality "can be said" (!!) to be Objective since independent objective reality "informs" (!!!!) experiment.

Informs? Seriously? What science asserts that?
Realism says that.
Gods says that.

That is like saying a 2d surface has all information being projected (or not) to 'our' 'realm' to underscore an unattainable, underlying reality.

Only 'independent objective reality' forbids (says 'no') to even making such a postulate.

We both disagree to realism and (any) god.

Count on my support for your positivism to my last breath.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2015
Foregone conclusion = A conclusion formed in advance to __________ <------- fill-in
- with literally any meaning human language has to offer..

Ok, I understand now, and agree.

Independent objective reality "can be said" (!!) to be Objective since independent objective reality "informs" (!!!!) experiment.
Informs? Seriously? What science asserts that?

I mean 'independent reality' can be justified as being considered as Objective Reality (albeit unknowable as it is in itself (i.e. without conceptual form)), in the sense that it is why science is Inductive and not Deductive,.... but NOT in the sense of supplying conceptual form and therefore well-defined independent properties, as the Realist would have it.

There must be a 'something' that says "no" to empirical verification of arbitrary constructions of reality. This limited sense of objective reality is necessary to avoid pure idealism. Objective reality must "inform" or "guide" experimentation.
russell_russell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2015
Take away the Realist's well-defined independent properties.
That suffices to arrive at the 'something' where any map (construction) remains a map of the 'something' that "informs" you of anything, especially the "no" to any map or mapping.

Postulate objective reality as information projected to accommodate, provide or eliminate any constraint!

Need consistency? No problem. Need inconsistency? No problem.
Simply postulate there can be no 'shortage' of information.
The only 'something' that will 'sell you short' or 'short change' you is your assumption that objective reality has a 'must-do' list of properties or whatever.
You can assume this if you like.
Experimentation delivers information. The dictates of information is experimentation.
fjmrichards
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2015
TheGhostofOtto : These objections to qualia would apply only if the such a self-contradictory definition of qualia were accepted. But such a definition is quite incompatible with our own experience of qualities (i.e., largely sense-perceptions), with are certainly never "incorrigible, ineffable, private" (which is a purely theological-scholastic -- in the historic European sense --, i.e., a thoroughly hypocritical, definition) : for, all our sense-perceptions are, indeed (and in all pragmatic ways), modifiable, describable, and shareable with other persons.
Losik : Dependence of cosmic divergence (and/or of cosmic convergence) of electro-magnetical radiation on the size of the material body of the observor would suggest that the Jaina description of the subtle jiva as aequivalent in size to that of the material body (which is spatially occupied by the jiva), is involved.
fjmrichards
3 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2015
However, the usual astika description of the atman, in the vibhu understanding as aequivalent in size to that of the material universe, could apply to some modality of observation in terms other than electro-magnetical radiation : and, in particular, to observations made neither by the material body nor of any aspect of the material universe : thus, by the suks.ma (subtle) body of the observor of the suks.ma (subtle) universe. It may be be considered that consciousless materialism is based on definitions closely analogous to the definition of a mathematical singularity (namely, of a self-inconsistent absurdity). In the hypotheses of materialism, even the potential existence of consciousness is rejected through vehemently denying even the potential existence of meaning, of value, and of purpose; all of which are, however, pragmatically necessarily inhaerent to intelligent consciousness.
fjmrichards
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2015
Incidentally, the notion of an automatically self-inflating universe is historically related to (viz., derived from catering to) the capitalism-apologetics literature claiming that exchange-value of commodities (not mere use-value) is automatically (magically) self-created without deriving from the labor-power of workers, and that therefore the Marxist doctrine that workers are being deprived (exploited) of their rightful due as producers of value cannot be true. This is merely a single instance of the multitudinous falsehoods abounding in capitalism-apologetics literature; but simply to accept a persistently inalterable-sized universe may be adequate definitively to collapse the attractiveness of capitalism-apologetics to academics, and thus to lead to the swift downfall of capitalism itself.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.