After the Big Bang

[averygoodspirit]

Mooware:<br /><br />One of my colleagues just walked into my office and said he was amazed at how ignorant many of the posters to this thread actually are. I had to explain to him that ignorance was a correctable situation and that I was obviously talking over your heads. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> but what you're suggesting, Avery, is that the universe made a conscious decision to come into being. <br /> <br /><font color="white">Yes. I’m saying that the point of singularity, that existed prior to the controlled release of what the universe aspired to, was alive and intelligent, and made a conscious decision to release its essence in order to control more space than what it initially occupied. <br /><br />The reason that this point of singularity was able to make this conscientious decision was because it was alive and intelligent. <br /><br />We can scientifically prove that it was alive and intelligent through the observations of the universe and ourselves. <br /><br />Can anyone logically disprove this statement? <br /><br />(We are alive and intelligent) + (We are of and a part of the universe) + (The universe is the expanded state of a universal singularity) = (The singularity was and the subsequent universe is alive and intelligent)<br /><br />Another analogy is the BB was like a predator (the other something) sneaking up on an octopus. The octopus senses the predator, ejects ink and then dashes away. The universe in this analogy is the ink, the octopus is the singularity, and the predator is dark matter. <br /><br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">One of my colleagues just walked into my office</font><br /><br /><br />Translation: "One of my FELLOW INMATES just walked into my CELL"

 

[averygoodspirit]

5stone10:<br /><br />You're ignorance is showing. What is your problem? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

IGOR HIM

 

[averygoodspirit]

Yeah! That's right, "IGOR" me. Kamarinas, You're ignorance is showing too! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

IGOR 5stone10 <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[averygoodspirit]

Oh! Okay. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mooware]

Avery, Assigning consiousness to a sigularity is a heck of a statement. <br /><br />You posted:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Can anyone logically disprove this statement? </font><br /><br />Now you know, those making extraordinary claims bear the burdon of proof. It's not up to us to "disprove". It's up to you to prove your claim.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[nexium]

There is very little I can prove and even less I can disprove. Working hypothesis are about the best I can do. Give me a clue. What works with an intellegent Universe? I fail to see why the intellegence of humans implies the universe is intellegent/consious. Neil

 

[mooware]

I think you mean this to be directed at Avery<br />

 

[newtonian]

averygoodspirit - I have many questions for you before I can respond well to you:<br /><br />1. Why have you chosen averygoodspirit for your handle (or:nickname?)<br /><br />2. Do you believe God created our universe (e.g.: Genesis 1:1)?<br /><br />3. How do you feel about the weak and strong anthropic principles?<br /><br />4. How do you feel about the various intelligent design theories (aka: ID)?<br /><br />5. Have you heard of the book "The Intelligent Universe," 1983, by astronomer Fred Hoyle? If so, what is your opinion of Hoyle's conclusions?<br /><br />If not, here is a sample quote of a quote from our literature:<br /><br />"Even if the odds are against it, could not spontaneous generation have happened anyway? Physicist and astronomer Fred Hoyle says: "There is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth." He also states: "As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that the chances of it originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance." Hoyle adds: "Biologists indulge in unsubstantiated fantasies in order to deny what is so patently obvious, that the 200,000 amino acid chains, and hence life, did not appear by chance." In effect, he asks, 'Just how could the accidental coupling of chemicals in an organic ooze alone produce the 2,000 enzymes essential to life?' He says the possibilities are one in 10^40,000, or "about the same as the chance of throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice!" (The Intelligent Universe, F. Hoyle, 1983, pages 11-12, 17, 23) He adds, "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."-Evolution From Space, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, page 24.<br /><br />6. For ex

 

[newtonian]

5stone10 - Hi!<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />What force could be that strong as too contain that great degree of energy? After all, gravity is a weak force - isn't it?<br /><br />The simple answer would be: God's spirit.<br /><br />Spirit is defined as invisible active force or energy.<br /><br />Exactly what forms of energy might have been involved is, to my knowledge, unknown at this time.<br /><br />Certainly dark energy, aka vacuum energy, aka the cosmological constant, is involved.<br /><br />Perhaps interaction with another dimension, or dimensions, was also involved.<br /><br />Remember, it is not at 1 AU diameter or radius that the energy was contained, but in a much smaller radius which scientists guess is a singularity.<br /><br />At 1 AU the universe was already expanding.<br /><br />My question is: was any matter formed yet at that early time - which may have been much less than 8 minutes if inflation models are accurate?<br /><br />Or were only forms of energy but no forms of matter involved at that early stage of creation?<br />

 

[newtonian]

Bill -Hi!<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />Another way to ask the original question was -- at the time of the Big Bang, was the speed of light = 183000 miles per second. To our knowledge this is true.<br /><br />While I am not certain that the speed of light is constant, do you have some reason for the estimate of 183,000 rather than 186,000 miles per second?<br /><br />I know light speed is dependent on the medium through which it travels, and at 8 minutes the universe was a much more dense medium. How did you arrive at that estimate?<br /><br />I suspect, unless there was very rapid inflation, that the universe would not let light escape yet - too densely packed energy and perhaps matter.<br /><br />And, yes, I do not know either if tachons exist and if, perhaps, their gravity is accelerating our universe by a domino effect.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Mooware:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Avery, Assigning consiousness to a sigularity is a heck of a statement. <br /><br /><font color="white"> Yes it is. It’s an exercise in thought. I’m just stating that the possibility exists. It’s a working variant of the Big Bang Theory.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">You posted: <br /><br /><font color="white">Can anyone logically disprove this statement? <br /><br /><font color="orange"> (We are alive and intelligent) + (We are of and a part of the universe) + (The universe is the expanded state of a universal singularity) = (The singularity was and the subsequent universe is alive and intelligent)<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Now you know, those making extraordinary claims bear the burdon of proof. It's not up to us to "disprove". It's up to you to prove your claim.<br /><br /><font color="white">Yes I know. How would you propose that I go about doing that? Even the “Big Bang Theory” has yet to be proven. That’s why it is a theory and not a proven scientific fact. <br /></font></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Thalion - Hi also!<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />Keep in mind that the speed of light applies only to travel inside space, not to the motion of space-time itself<br /><br />OK, how do you measure the motion of space-time? And what do you propose as a speed limit for space-time?<br /><br />Frankly, I have a problem with the whole issue since it skews motion as the increased distance between two reference points with the passage of time.<br /><br />That is, motion between two reference points would then have no known speed limit provided the distance was caused by motion (expansion) of space-time.<br /><br />Also, are you saying that matter can indeed expand faster than light due to the expansion of space-time, but photons cannot expand faster than light speed?<br /><br />Isn't that some sort of paradox?

 

[newtonian]

Bill - on your later question:<br /><br />Does anyone have a theory regarding higher dimensions?<br /><br />My question first is: what do you mean by higher?<br /><br />Or up? North?<br /><br />Certainly, there are a number of String theories which propose additional dimensions, e.g. 10 or 11.<br /><br />Then there are brane collision theories for the origin of the big bang.<br /><br />And I have no idea what the dimensions of a scaler field would be as in Linde's older version of inflation.<br /><br />And there are others- do you wish me to go on?<br /><br />You might note 1 Kings 8:27 and ask exactly why a universe containing our universe and other universes still could not contain God. Certainly this could be because such a much larger universe containing many universes including our own would still not contain enough dimensions to contain God.<br /><br />[BTW - the Bible does refer to another heaven where God does indeed dwell or reside and to which Jesus traveled at his ascension.]<br />Getting back to the more local area, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that our universe is expanding within another much larger universe and may eventually interact with other universes- if it is not already doing so beyond our visibility horizon.<br /><br />Scientists have theorized this, but this is necessarily theoretical science since we do not have dark energy telescopes yet and cannot observe that far yet.<br />

 

[averygoodspirit]

Nexium:<br /><br /><font color="white"> Hi Neil. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> There is very little I can prove and even less I can disprove. Working hypothesis are about the best I can do. Give me a clue. What works with an intellegent Universe? I fail to see why the intellegence of humans implies the universe is intellegent/consious. Neil<br /> <br /><font color="white"> I agree with you about proving and disproving things. When it comes to theorizing possibilities, there is no proof. There is only assumption, speculation and conjecture. Due to the nature of theories, there is no scientifically accepted proof, only evidence of possibility. <br /> <br />If a statement, irregardless of how observed it may at first seem, can’t be disproved, you can’t say, “That dog don’t hunt.” My hypothesis with respect to this variation of “The Big Bang Theory” does work. <br /><br /><font color="orange"> (We are alive and intelligent) + (We are of and a part of the universe) + (The universe is the expanded state of a universal singularity) = (The singularity was and the subsequent universe is alive and intelligent)<br /><br /><font color="white">Cumulative Mathematical Proof = If XY and Z exists, and Y is of and a part of XY and Z then XY and Z has all the same properties of Y.<br /></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

avery - Please see my above response to you.<br /><br />On your last post - would you say the theory of evolution has no proof?<br /><br />There is a difference between microevolution, which is proven by actual observation, and macroevolution, which is more like what you posted.<br /><br />That is the difference between true science and philosophy. True science is based on observational proof, while philosophy is not.<br /><br />Of course, there are grey areas, where there is some observational evidence but the evidence is not conclusive- yet.<br /><br />However, if you really want your questions addressed, then I suggest you read my posted response to you.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Newtonian:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">averygoodspirit - I have many questions for you before I can respond well to you: <br /><br />1. Why have you chosen averygoodspirit for your handle (or:nickname?) <br /><br /><font color="white"> It's just a name. I didn't want to use my real name on this forum since nobody else does. I try to be a very good spirit, and it's a little catchy. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">2. Do you believe God created our universe (e.g.: Genesis 1:1)? <br /><br /><font color="white">I believe God IS the Universe. Did he create himself? God only knows. <br /><br />I'm not a theologian. I don't want to debate religious beliefs. Great wars have been started over less. It just seems logically reasonable to me that the universe would be God. I think GOD is short for Grandest of Dimensions. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">3. How do you feel about the weak and strong anthropic principles? <br /><br /><font color="white"> Brandon Carter outlined these principles as a way of bringing some understanding to the nature of the universe. Carter's weak anthropic principle nor his strong anthropic principle has anything to do with divine design. These principles concern observational selection effects. <br /><br />His strong anthropic principle, states that the universe in which we find ourselves must (since we observers are in it, aren't we?) be a universe whose properties are not totally hostile to life and to intelligence, Carter has never meant that this universe was forced to be of a kind which would permit intelligent life to evolve, let alone that it had been positively compelled to contain intelligent living beings.<br /><br />I agree with this thinking. I think it's a matter of vastness and possibilities. If something like life is possible, the universe finds a way to manifest it somewhere in time and within itself. That's not to say that all things that are possible exist. We like to think of ourselves as intelligent beings, but intelligence is a relative</font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bbrock]

Lets dispens with the theology. <br /><br />I am a Chrisitan, I believe god made the universe. God told us what he did, not how he did it. These questins deal with laws of physics. Not the nature of God. So if this discussion is about physics then stick with physics. We will never be able to measure or understand God. <br /><br />Bill

 

[averygoodspirit]

Newtonian:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">avery - Please see my above response to you. <br /><br /><font color="white">I thought I did.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">On your last post - would you say the theory of evolution has no proof? <br /><br />There is a difference between microevolution, which is proven by actual observation, and macroevolution, which is more like what you posted. <br /><br />That is the difference between true science and philosophy. True science is based on observational proof, while philosophy is not. <br /><br /><font color="white">Darwin’s theory of evolution is a special, scientific case. It was the few times that science slapped theology upside the head in a very real way. <br /><br />Despite proven facts, today, evolution is taught in our schools as a theory because as a theory, instead of what it truly is, it doesn’t create as many waves with the moral majority that believe that evolution violates the basic sacred principles of creation that are written in the book of Genesis. <br /><br />I love to read the Bible because it is very well written and historic. This collection of books tells us how our ancestors thought between three thousand and fifteen hundred years ago. I think most reasonable people will agree that certain aspects of these books are a little outdated. We have science to thank for that, but science is not a religion. <br /><br />There is no faith when it comes to science; only facts and theory. Theoretical science is a form of philosophical thinking. Science and philosophy are not necessarily two different things anymore than religion and reality are necessarily two different things. There is a quantity of truth to be found in all things real. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Of course, there are grey areas, where there is some observational evidence but the evidence is not conclusive- yet. <br /> <br /><font color="white">When it comes to macroevolution, you would be hard pressed to find an anthropologist that would agree</font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Bbrock:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Lets dispens with the theology. <br /><br />I am a Chrisitan, I believe god made the universe. God told us what he did, not how he did it. These questins deal with laws of physics. Not the nature of God. So if this discussion is about physics then stick with physics. We will never be able to measure or understand God. <br /><br />Bill <br /><br /><font color="white">I tend to agree with Benjamin Franklin when he said, <font color="orange">“I’ve never heard of any subject that was so bad that it couldn’t be talked about.”<br /><br /><font color="white"> Studying and discovering how God created the universe is part of what life is all about. If you understand the physics of how God did it, you will understand more about the nature of God. We can learn new things, measure and understand more and more aspects of God everyday. It’s what makes life worth living. <br /></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

averygoodspirit - Thank you for responding.<br /><br />On your 12/26 long post:<br /><br />1. Good. <br /><br />2. Well, I didn't wish to debate - just discuss and understand better what you (and others) believe and why.<br /><br />Personally, I believe God cannot be contained in our universe (1 Kings 8:27) but is the source of the laws and fine tuned properties which make life possible and make our universe awesome and beautiful.<br />BTW - those in my religion do not go to war and practice love for all.<br /><br />3. That's allot, so I'll just comment briefly for now:<br /><br />I like the actual scientific observations involved with the two anthropic principles, but I steer away from the philosophical part.<br /><br />What interests me the most is the fine tuning of many details involving the laws and properties of our universe (and earth). <br /><br />For example, the expansion rate of our universe. It is close to omega=1, which is very unlikely mathematically.<br /><br />Only very slightly faster and the universe would have dispersed before stars could have formed.<br /><br />Only very slightly slower and the universe would have collapsed by now.<br /><br />However, the relatively simple calculations considered by astronomer Lovell and others just a few years ago are now complicated by inflation theories, and the discovery of acceleration of expansion.<br /><br />These simply make the fine tuning more complex, but just as amazing to me.<br /><br />I will respond more later.<br /><br />Thank you again for your response.

 

[newtonian]

averygoodspirit -you posted:<br /><br />I believe the space time continuum is, but is not limited to, the universe. I also believe in the existence of a universal constitution, or in other words, a divine design, but "divine selection¨ is another thing entirely.<br /><br />Interesting. I agree, sort of. So where else does space and or time exist besides our universe?<br /><br />For me, I believe our universe?s space-time began at the instant of creation dubbed the big bang.<br /><br />I do not agree with Stephen Hawkings, as in the current broadcast: ?A Brief History of Time,? airing today on the Science channel [right now, btw] - that our universe did not have a beginning in time because ?imaginary time? already existed.<br /><br />However, I do believe primordial time pre-existed our universes space-time.<br /><br />My reason being the principle of cause and effect.<br /><br />And my definition of time, to wit:<br /><br />time: the medium through which cause and effect flow.<br /><br />Therefore, our universe was caused during primordial time.<br /><br />1 Kings 8:27 implies many universes within a much larger universe, btw.<br /><br />Oh - I do admire Stephen Hawking?s genius, just don?t agree on all details.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Newtonian:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Personally, I believe God cannot be contained in our universe (1 Kings 8:27) but is the source of the laws and fine tuned properties which make life possible and make our universe awesome and beautiful. <br /><br /><font color="white">That is an interesting passage. I suppose it is possible for there to be something outside what we call the universe. There may be other universes in existence that are separated by vast amounts of “nothing” which would be the purist of all vacuums. It’s so purely nothing, it can’t even be called a vacuum. Except for a transition zone, it’s an all or nothing proposition. The universe is all, and what lies outside the universe is nothing, until you reach another universe, if one exists. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">BTW - those in my religion do not go to war and practice love for all. <br /><br /><font color="white">Do those in your religion practice love for all of those who would choose to enslave, torture, rape, pillage, plunder, and kill you? The freedom to live in peace and “practice love for all” is not free.<br /><br />Long before we were born, there were some very intelligent and knowledgeable people who lived on this planet. Some of their writings can be read in books like the Bible. Other, more recent works can be read in such things as The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution and The United States Bill of Rights. <br /><br />“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”<br /><br />Where did these unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from? Did we win them in a past war? Did we make them up? Were they given to us by aliens? No. We have these rights by virtue of being a part of the universe itself. They are God given rights, and the fact that they are unalienable means t</font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>