We May Finally Understand the Moments Before the Big Bang

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Has a total vaccume with nothing in exsistance been established yet? If yes then I see what your saying, something can't come from nothing, if not hmm how do you know if everything has not been organized by something we couldn't explain because our comprehention can't do so, remember the only reason we can see, hear, touch ,smell,and taste is consciousness why couldn't we be a experiment from a consciousness we could never understand?
You have 2 choices – believe in the rock-solid most fundamental principle ever devised by science and so far never violated, that being, 'matter-energy' can neither be created nor destroyed – or you can trust in a new word – nyll – invented by, possibly just a member of the public. The above conservation law, also, automatically implies that there has ALWAYS been something (and that includes before the big bang) and that there WILL always be something. Another way to put it is that our universe did not come from 'nothing'.

If you prefer to believe you can get something from nothing, then any thing's possible and you don't need science for that, just magic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djbillyd

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,282
913
3,560
Fair enough. It sounds a bit like string theory where all the basic particles are extremely small (far smaller than the particles as seen by us) strings of vibrating energy. I too noted in my book that matter is mostly empty space, but I also argued that there's no such thing as pure energy either, since most energy is due to the movement of something (kinetic energy) or a wound up force in waiting (potential energy). So I was only left with the option to reduce everything to forces and moving forces, rather than energy fields. Quantum field theory says different to both the above ideas. It treats particles as excited states of their underlying fields.

I don't think electric charge exists in its own right I think it needs a source or carrier. The field between two carriers of charge might cancel but the carriers won't disappear. When 'electric charge' in its basic form, an electron and a positron (antimatter), are brought together they do annihilate each other but there's a blast of energy in the form of photons left over. So the result is not completely 'nothing'. Also to create something from nothing you need to find 'nothing' to start with, which most likely doesn't exist. For me, the whole of that idea kills itself off as suggested by the use of the word catalyst.

For the time being, I think it's a rock-solid bet that 'matter-energy' can neither be created nor destroyed. (Incidentally, that also implies there was something before the big bang).
I note we also have the *rock-solid* 2nd Law and entropy. This suggests that matter-energy will not accomplish work through infinity to create new universe(s), things run down. A universe with a distinct, singular beginning is a huge problem for many today. A universe where life did not arise via the well attested scientific law of abiogenesis is a problem. A universe with the Earth near the center of an expanding universe - is a big problem. Currently in cosmology, the Earth at the center of the redshifts and expansion is rejected because of philosophical grounds.
 
I note we also have the *rock-solid* 2nd Law and entropy. This suggests that matter-energy will not accomplish work through infinity to create new universe(s), things run down. A universe with a distinct, singular beginning is a huge problem for many today. A universe where life did not arise via the well attested scientific law of abiogenesis is a problem. A universe with the Earth near the center of an expanding universe - is a big problem. Currently in cosmology, the Earth at the center of the redshifts and expansion is rejected because of philosophical grounds.
Hi, rod thanks for your reply. The post you quoted above was mainly aimed at the 'something from nothing' debate, so I can't quite see the connections with this reply. Anyway, you've raised a lot of interesting issues. I'll try to address them all, and so will take a long time. In the meantime, I would love to know where you stand on the something from nothing debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,282
913
3,560
Hi, rod thanks for your reply. The post you quoted above was mainly aimed at the 'something from nothing' debate, so I can't quite see the connections with this reply. Anyway, you've raised a lot of interesting issues. I'll try to address them all, and so will take a long time. In the meantime, I would love to know where you stand on the something from nothing debate.
David-J-Franks, I would love to have money appear in my wallet - from nothing :) I adhere to the scientific method and standard of testing that won the day for the heliocentric solar system vs. geocentric, and immovable Earth teaching. Is there a well attested and verified, *scientific law* showing something from nothing is part of natural law operating in the universe today?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
David-J-Franks, I would love to have money appear in my wallet - from nothing :) I adhere to the scientific method and standard of testing that won the day for the heliocentric solar system vs. geocentric, and immovable Earth teaching. Is there a well attested and verified, *scientific law* showing something from nothing is part of natural law operating in the universe today?
No there isn't, I'm so relieved to hear your reply.
 
I note we also have the *rock-solid* 2nd Law and entropy. This suggests that matter-energy will not accomplish work through infinity to create new universe(s), things run down. A universe with a distinct, singular beginning is a huge problem for many today. A universe where life did not arise via the well attested scientific law of abiogenesis is a problem. A universe with the Earth near the center of an expanding universe - is a big problem. Currently in cosmology, the Earth at the center of the redshifts and expansion is rejected because of philosophical grounds.
Hi, rod
“I note we also have the *rock-solid* 2nd Law and entropy. This suggests that matter-energy will not accomplish work through infinity to create new universe(s), things run down.”
I think this problem only arises if you believe ours is the only universe and all the rest of 'the infinite' is empty so our universe can expand indefinitely into it. As for entropy, again, because I propose 'The Infinite' is full of other matter our expanding universe will meet up with it and stop expanding! So, in my theory called 'Steady State of The Infinite', I, therefore, suggest that entropy will stop increasing when this happens, and what's more that there's an upper maximum limit to entropy anywhere in 'The Infinite'! Also ruling out the possibility of a complete heat death of any universe!

You may be able to witness the temporary violation of the 2nd law with your telescope. When you look at stars forming in those pretty coloured gas clouds. The gas starts off with a relatively high entropy and then collapses under its own gravity to form a new star and planets, which seems to have a much lower entropy i.e. it is much more ordered than the gas cloud was. If life forms on one of its planets, then more ordered still. I suggest this is a local and temporary violation of the 2nd law. However, over the whole universe, entropy is still, on average, increasing.

The above star formation process suggests to me that when things fly apart and expand, then entropy increases, and when gravity pulls things in, then entropy decreases. So I suggest that as in star formation entropy also decreases when matter falls into a black hole. So as a universe ages and more and more black holes form and merge, they are storing the lost information, order and energy from our universe.

All I'm suggesting in my 'Steady State of The Infinite' theory is a similar process to the star formation. In this theory I've assumed there are an infinite number of other universes. Also, that, as these and our universe near the end of their expansion (which they must do when they meet up with the other expanding universes) they will be mostly black holes by then (with maybe some other leftovers). So instead of a dense patch of cloud collapsing in on itself, it will be a dense patch of black holes collapsing in on itself. This could be a slow process whereby just one black hole keeps getting bigger and bigger until it explodes into a new universe! Or it could be a faster process whereby many blacks holes collapse onto each other and then rebound again to form a new universe.

It's now easy to see where all the information, order and energy come from to form a new universe, It was stored in all the black holes.

Entropy increases when universes expand and decreases when matter collapses in on itself when forming a new universe. The collapsing winds everything back up again.

Again, details in book, 1. space is infinite 2. matter-energy has always existed, which implies before the big bang as-well. If matter-energy has always existed then motion (time to you, has always existed). The process of entropy always increasing now becomes nonsense, because matter-energy and motion have always existed, there would be absolutely no order left now. So whatever theory about existence you choose, it must have some sort of recycling process to it, such as my theory above. The proof is that we are here after an infinite amount of time has already passed.

In other words, if the laws of physics allowed matter-energy to endless disperse and\or, for it to endlessly plunge into black holes, there would be next to nothing now, except a lot of black holes wandering about, with very little between them. The only way to recycle the matter-energy in them is for them to explode as outlined above. There's no other way for it.

Because you can't get something from nothing –

That which came out of the big bang went in first. - Including all our universe's order, information and energy.

“A universe with a distinct, singular beginning is a huge problem for many today.”
Again, if you choose a theory with some form of recycling these problems disappear for me.

I agree with abiogenesis.

I currently have no opinion on where our earth is in relation to the rest of the universe.
 
Taking us back to the very moment of the big bang is a point in time and a place, just before the flash point of the explosion where was that spot located ? if nothing existed can something from nothing occur in physics ? where did this place exist? Am I the only one thinking like this? Please take it easy on me I'm a newbie but this has always been on my mind since I heard about the " Big bang"
Seems to be the only thing that is impossible in our universe is nothing.
My guess is we are just 1 universe in an endless sea of them that started from potential energy of nothing. So before the big bang was a big collapse, then a big bang as we collide with neighbors.
Before time was potential time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,282
913
3,560
FYI all. I was watching the show, 'How the Universe Works' narrated by Mike Rowe on the SCI channel this morning. The topic was the Big Bang (how timely for this thread and discussion). Currently General Relativity shows the expansion of the universe when *extrapolated backwards* leads to the singularity for the origin of the observable universe today. Quantum mechanics says there can be no singularity, so we have a conflict in science between different physics and math. The inflation model, multiverse, is new math and new physics to get around problems like this. Presently, we do not observe an inflating universe (e.g. 3D space expanding 10^20 > c) or inflaton particles or the new physics operating in our solar system or the Milky Way. Using the present observable universe and known scientific laws, early this morning I enjoyed views of Mars in Libra near the double star, Zubenelgenubi, 0600 EST. I was able to do this because of the scientific method that showed where Mars would be and for my location, what altitude and azimuth I needed to look at with my telescope. Also the rotating Earth was involved in the calculations too. Sure enough, Mars was in the eyepiece and as I watched for 60 minutes, the telescope needed adjustment to track Mars across the sky because of the spinning planet too. The rigorous scientific method that confirmed the heliocentric solar system and round, spinning Earth, allowed my observations to be successful. In my opinion - all cosmology and origin of the universe discussions do not have a *rock solid* foundation confirmed by the scientific method (currently), as the science that allowed me to know where Mars was this morning and view Mars.
 
This is a reply to Mental Avenger post 34.

I would like to point out that Mental Avenger proposes the universe came into being from absolutely nothing and went to great pains to mean nothing, by inventing a new word for it, 'nyll'. Then further goes onto say that there must have been a catalyst to start it off. So perhaps not quite 'nyll' before the big bang after-all. (See Mental Avenger posts 24 and 26). So, given this, there's bound to be a lot of difference between our ways of thinking. Below is a copy of Mental Avenger post 34, so I can write my responses to it, marked, My reply:
All I'm suggesting in my 'Steady State of The Infinite' theory is a similar process to the star formation. In this theory I've assumed there are an infinite number of other universes. Also, that, as these and our universe near the end of their expansion (which they must do when they meet up with the other expanding universes) they will be mostly black holes by then (with maybe some other leftovers). So instead of a dense patch of cloud collapsing in on itself, it will be a dense patch of black holes collapsing in on itself. This could be a slow process whereby just one black hole keeps getting bigger and bigger until it explodes into a new universe! Or it could be a faster process whereby many blacks holes collapse onto each other and then rebound again to form a new universe.
Your assumption about other Universes, let alone infinite Universes has no basis whatsoever in any information we have or rational scenario. By definition, the Universe is everything that exists.

My reply: There are many theories about with postulates with more than 1 universe, dictionaries haven't caught up with this yet, So I will continue to use words likes 'universes' and 'other universes' I think readers are intelligent enough to figure that out. I think you're just playing with words here.

On the contrary, It is irrational to assume ours is the only universe and all the rest of space is empty from her to infinity. I say 'rest of space' because science gives our universe a size, therefore implying there's something beyond its size. If it has a size it exists in a space.
It's now easy to see where all the information, order and energy come from to form a new universe, It was stored in all the black holes.
That does not make any sense whatsoever.

My reply: Quantum theory says information cannot be destroyed. Therefore when matter falls into a black hole its information is retained. So, as above when all the black holes combine to form a new universe, the information/order is in place. Extremely sensible, can't think of any other way information /order can be preserved. As stated:

Because you can't get something from nothing –

That which came out of the big bang went in first. - Including all our universe's order, information and energy.

Evidence for this process is your existence. If the contents of the big bang were a clean blanc slate containing no order/information, or it was a disordered mixture, there would be nothing now.
Entropy increases when universes expand and decreases when matter collapses in on itself when forming a new universe. The collapsing winds everything back up again.
As noted, entropy decreases. Always.

My reply: I guess you meant to say entropy increases. Anyway, if entropy always increased, including before our universe, then there would be nothing now.
Again, details in book, 1. space is infinite 2. matter-energy has always existed, which implies before the big bang as-well. If matter-energy has always existed then motion (time to you, has always existed). The process of entropy always increasing now becomes nonsense, because matter-energy and motion have always existed, there would be absolutely no order left now. So whatever theory about existence you choose, it must have some sort of recycling process to it, such as my theory above. The proof is that we are here after an infinite amount of time has already passed.
That assumes that the Universe is dependent upon something that existed previously. There is no information that supports that.

My reply: Because matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed means that – There has always been something in one form or another. Including before our universe! Proof enough I think.
In other words, if the laws of physics allowed matter-energy to endless disperse and\or, for it to endlessly plunge into black holes, there would be next to nothing now, except a lot of black holes wandering about, with very little between them. The only way to recycle the matter-energy in them is for them to explode as outlined above. There's no other way for it.
Again, that assumes that the Universe is dependent upon something that existed previously.
Because you can't get something from nothing –
You cannot prove that.


My reply: I don't have to, I think my readers are smart enough to figure that out themselves.
I agree with abiogenesis.
Finally, a statement that makes sense.
I currently have no opinion on where our earth is in relation to the rest of the universe.
We are at the exact center of the Observable Universe.

My reply: I said universe, not Observable universe.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,282
913
3,560
David-J-Franks, is your view of the universe and explanation for the origin of the universe - science or a worldview/philosophy of nature? When I refer to science I mean the scientific method, observable, verifiable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable. The scientific method established the heliocentric solar system as true and showed the geocentric solar system with the immovable Earth, false. So, bottom line. Are you expressing a philosophy of origins or the scientific method about the universe and origins?
 
Dec 2, 2019
43
18
35
" For the time being, I think it's a rock-solid bet that 'matter-energy' can neither be created nor destroyed. (Incidentally, that also implies there was something before the big bang). "

I agree 100% with above statement.

In the beginning, there was ALWAYS something, suffice to say, that which created the BIG BANG, for starters. And who knows what those thing(s) were before that.

In so far as UNDERSTANDING the BIG BANG, treated as such, a BIG BANG JOOOOOOKE, or what physicists come up on steroids.

Relax your minds, don't loose sleep over it.

A psychiatrist would say, those who come up with these ideas have run out of steam, and simply aimlessly invent theories to keep their simple minds from collapsing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
David-J-Franks, is your view of the universe and explanation for the origin of the universe - science or a worldview/philosophy of nature? When I refer to science I mean the scientific method, observable, verifiable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable. The scientific method established the heliocentric solar system as true and showed the geocentric solar system with the immovable Earth, false. So, bottom line. Are you expressing a philosophy of origins or the scientific method about the universe and origins?
Hi rod, In your reply to me, post28, You raised numerous issues. I spent an hour painstakingly responding to each one in turn but was disappointed when you didn't respond to any of my contributions to those issues.

Anyway, onto this reply. My writings are mostly philosophy. I am incorporating The Big Bang theory into mine, so any evidence that has also goes towards mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,282
913
3,560
Hi rod, In your reply to me, post28, You raised numerous issues. I spent an hour painstakingly responding to each one in turn but was disappointed when you didn't respond to any of my contributions to those issues.

Anyway, onto this reply. My writings are mostly philosophy. I am incorporating The Big Bang theory into mine, so any evidence that has also goes towards mine.
Thanks for clarifying here, *mostly philosophy*. The Big Bang theory - is theory, not science fact like the round Earth vs. flat earth or the geocentric immovable Earth vs. the heliocentric solar system with the Earth moving around the Sun. While there are impressive observational evidences documented supporting the Big Bang theory like the CMBR, redshifts, H/He ratio - there are many observational cracks too that are documented in published, peer reviewed journals and reports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Reply to post 39. Below is a copy of Mental Avenger post 39, so I can write my responses to it, marked, My reply:
I would like to point out that Mental Avenger proposes the universe came into being from absolutely nothing and went to great pains to mean nothing, by inventing a new word for it, 'nyll'.
The purpose of specific words is that it is more efficient to use that word than to explain everything the word represents every time the concept is being discussed.
Then further goes onto say that there must have been a catalyst to start it off. So perhaps not quite 'nyll' before the big bang after-all. (See Mental Avenger posts 24 and 26). So, given this, there's bound to be a lot of difference between our ways of thinking.
That is not true. I said, “it is possible that unlimited numbers of equal and opposite pairs of those fields could be created from nothing, using a catalyst.” That is one possibility of many. Since we are discussing unknowns and unknowables, there are many possibilities and very few absolutes.

My reply; I am not discussing this absurd idea. I'm quoting it so readers can know my ideas are being called absurd by the creator of the most absurd of them all i.e. the universe came from nothing. See posts 24(“Something from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question; What was the catalyst?”) + post 26(“Before the Big Bang there was nyll.**”)
There are many theories about with postulates with more than 1 universe, dictionaries haven't caught up with this yet, So I will continue to use words likes 'universes' and 'other universes' I think readers are intelligent enough to figure that out. I think you're just playing with words here.
Of course there are such theories, just as there are theories about other parallel dimensions and all sorts of other imaginary things. But “Universe”, by definition, is everything that exists. Again, there is no basis whatsoever in any information we have for other Universes.

My reply: I see you had to refer to 'another universe' to help with your proposition: quote from post24 “At the point of creation (BB), all of the energy fields of one "flavor" were thrust into being in this universe, and all the energy fields of the other "flavor" were thrust into being in another universe.” Convenient, isn't it?
On the contrary, It is irrational to assume ours is the only universe and all the rest of space is empty from her to infinity. I say 'rest of space' because science gives our universe a size, therefore implying there's something beyond its size. If it has a size it exists in a space.
You are making assumptions again. Some theories say that space is created by the Universe among others. There is still a dispute about what space actually is. There is no information that there has to be something beyond the edge of our Universe. Perhaps there is nyll.

My reply: If our universe came from a big bang and is expanding, it must have a centre and boundary or edge, if it has an age then it has a finite size. That means it's an object – objects exist in a space, they are not the creation of ALL space. I'm not trying to say what space is, only that there is space – of some sort. Your using the words 'edge' and 'beyond' now – good. There''s a 3rd concept to be extracted here – infinity. “Perhaps there is nyll.”[beyond the universe] implies you can go forever i.e. to infinity. So far, then, we have a finite universe surrounded by an infinity of empty space, either nyll or made of something, it doesn't matter for now. That seems absurd to me. What laws of physics could possibly give rise to just one universe, with the rest of infinity being empty? If the laws of physics allows one universe, the same laws must allow an infinite number. So, if there's a universe here, why not over there and over there etc., until there's an infinite amount. So, I suggest that whatever mechanism (even if it's your absurd idea of a universe from nothing) gives rise to a universe then there must be an infinite number of them. Quote from post34 “Your assumption about other Universes, let alone infinite Universes has no basis whatsoever in any information we have or rational scenario.” Not so irrational after-all perhaps?
Quantum theory says information cannot be destroyed. Therefore when matter falls into a black hole its information is retained. So, as above when all the black holes combine to form a new universe, the information/order is in place. Extremely sensible, can't think of any other way information /order can be preserved.
That is another baseless assumption.

My reply: (This topic comes from post32) OK, then how do you explain where all the information/order you see around you now, came from. Perhaps it came pre-installed in your universe from nothing!
Evidence for this process is your existence. If the contents of the big bang were a clean blanc slate containing no order/information, or it was a disordered mixture, there would be nothing now.
Wrong. Our existence is in no way whatsoever evidence of your absurd claim.

My reply: (This topic comes from post32) All events and happenings now, have an indefinite, unbroken chain of cause and effect, by indefinite, I mean all the way back to the big bang and before the big bang since matter-energy has always existed. If anyone disagrees with this “absurd claim” they need to say that, somewhere along the lineage that cause and effect don't apply! And if possible at what stage in the universe they don't apply.

That which came out of the big bang went in first. - Including all our universe's ORDER, INFORMATION and energy.
Because matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed means that – There has always been something in one form or another. Including before our universe! Proof enough I think.
Since we do not know what happens to matter when it enters a Black Hole (if they exist), there is no way to know if the tenets of those theories apply.

My reply: Since matter came out of the big bang intact, I don't think a black hole will damage it much.
I don't have to, I think my readers are smart enough to figure that out themselves.
Your snarky condescending remarks are contrary to civil discussion.
I said universe, not Observable universe.
I know. We are at the exact center of the Observable Universe, because that is the only Universe (or part of Universe) for which we can ever gather information.

For someone who claims they don’t argue, you sure do argue a great deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,282
913
3,560
FYI David-J-Franks, Mental Avenger et al. Very interesting discussion here :) I note this that David-J-Franks said about black holes "Quantum theory says information cannot be destroyed. Therefore when matter falls into a black hole its information is retained. So, as above when all the black holes combine to form a new universe, the information/order is in place. Extremely sensible, can't think of any other way information /order can be preserved."

The argument presented about the black hole and information is not based upon Einstein GR but quantum gravity. Kip S. Thorne book, "Black Holes & Time Warps Einstein Outrageous Legacy" from 1994 covers this topic. The 2nd law or increasing entropy governs black holes too but quantum gravity is an effort to get around problems between the 2nd Law or increasing entropy and the ultimate end of the universe - heat death where everything is zero degrees Kelvin in the remote future. Kip Thorne makes it clear that quantum gravity is not well understood - let alone confirmed as a universal law governing everywhere in the universe today (like Kepler planetary laws or Newton's laws of motion or gravity) let alone shown to be operating at the center of black holes. This was in 1994, I do not see where quantum gravity is confirmed as a universal law operating at the bottom of black holes today. In science, assumptions can be made but the scientific method requires the assumption(s) must be tested and shown to be true as well, especially when a *new law* like quantum gravity is proposed and used to explain the origins of everything. This is a concern I have with all popular science reports claiming to know *what was there before the Big Bang*. There is new math and new physics involved that do not have the history of observation and testing like Kepler's planetary laws, elliptical orbits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Dec 6, 2019
8
1
515
The Big Bang is "simply" a failure to understand the meaning of infinity. Our math (devised by the Arabs, I think?) fails when we try to get too close to the extremes at either end of The Infinite. The Big Bang is nothing more than the Pope trying to muffle Galileo. I'm an apostle of the Steinhardt/Turok "Endless Universe" - but they have probably moved on from that; I'm ten years behind the times.
 
Great theory. But try this one: "In the beginning, God created the heavens, and then the Earth". Your thoughts on "infinity" run so counter to the reality that there was not just "something" before the so-called "big bang", but there was an intelligent being that assembled this bomb in the first place. Things don't just "happen", even today. They are the results of some catalytic process. "Infinity" is an excuse to escape the reality. But there has always been time and space. There will always be, time and space. Make no doubt sir, that there is not "something", but there is "someone", far greater than our comprehension, that made the bomb that you refer to as "the big bang". I refer to it as "creation".
Thanks for your reply. First of all, can you say which god you're referring to please as there are several religions and some of them are main religions?

I'll try and respond to your all comments in order.

First, from your previous post, number 50, you said: "But what is still not established in the article, or the comments is, where did the infinite have it's beginning?". As far as I can tell I coined the term 'the infinite' (at least as far as cosmology is concerned) so I like to put it in inverted commas thanks. There is a rock-solid principle in science it states that matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed that means it's always been here (which also implies before the Big Bang) and always will be. So, the answer to your question is, ‘the infinite’ has always existed so there was no beginning. I know that's difficult to comprehend but if you're to take that scientific principle literally, which I do, then there isn't an alternative. In posts 12 and 19, I then go on to briefly suggest why all 'the infinite' would contain matter and other universes. The only thing I would say in addition to that is that if you do accept 'the infinite' then there is no reason to think our particular place in 'the infinite' is special. It would be absurd to think any kind of laws of physics would allow just one spot in an infinite of empty space to have stuff or a universe with nothing anywhere else. In other words, if there's something here there's something everywhere.

Next, you say "And back to this cake, it won't make itself, even if we put all of the ingredients on the kitchen cabinet, stacked on top of each other, in a big mixing bowl, will it?" and from your next post, 51, “Things don't just "happen", even today. They are the results of some catalytic process.". I believe things do just happen(As long as they still follow 'cause and effect'), the catalyst is the 'cause'. This 'cause' comes from, I believe, an infinite lineage of cause and effect, without beginning (which also means before the big bang, and applicable to all the ingredients that went into it). All you need are the ingredients which have always been here. The rules of engagement i.e. the laws of physics and chemistry. Some energy and motion, and as said earlier, energy is conserved, there's always some energy, the energy comes from the winding up of the matter when it was compressed by gravity into whatever the contents of the Big Bang were, and the subsequent explosion, and, of course, a suitable environment for things to form in. There's also another fundamental principle in quantum mechanics which says information can't be destroyed, so the information/order to make things was also already in the environment, as it cannot have been destroyed previously. The order is encoded in the arrangement and motion of the ingredients. There's a lot more in my book about this particular topic, in my chapter ‘Information and Order’. Many of the chemicals needed to make life are forming all the time in hot springs, ponds, hydrothermal vents, etc. They even start forming in the interstellar gas clouds and on asteroids and Comets. It's a natural process chemicals just form and get more and more complicated until life arises.

Still, in post 50, you said, “that there is more to it than some random fissure of a minute particle that made itself, and morphed into this dynamic ball of energy that exploded to occupy the "nyll" that we know as "space".” The big bang model doesn’t suggest what was before, so a lot of scientists make their own ideas up. I agree with you that it’s absurd “a minute particle that made itself”, but, as I said before, stuff has always existed it wasn’t created.

In post 51 you say "Infinity" is an excuse to escape the reality.” If there’s no Infinity what are the boundaries and what’s beyond those boundaries?

You said, “There will always be, time and space.” I don’t believe there’s such a thing as ‘time’, I believe there’s only motion and regular or periodic motion. (Lots more about ‘time’ in my book) So, I would be in part agreement and say “There will always be, motion and space(with something in it).”

My theory doesn’t go against current science, and so, is all plausible, but not provable yet. No current theories about the universe are completely provable yet. I find my theory to be complete, whole, (except for the minute details of every particle etc), self-sufficient, requiring no creation or evolution and needs no beginning or end. With much of it based on solid scientific principles.

Best wishes, David J Franks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

Vaz

Jan 5, 2020
24
10
15
It's impossible to know what happened before existence, because there was literally nothing. All came about in that split second of the big bang, which was a physicality that can be measured and studied.
You can't learn something about nothing when nothing is literally the absence and void of every thing.
 
It's impossible to know what happened before existence, because there was literally nothing. All came about in that split second of the big bang, which was a physicality that can be measured and studied.
You can't learn something about nothing when nothing is literally the absence and void of every thing.
Hi, I guess you didn't agree with any of my musings above. Here you said: "All came about in that split second of the big bang" Are you suggesting you can have something from nothing? What do you see wrong in my proposition (2) from post No 12 above?:

(2) Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means there has always been something – and that also means before the big bang!

Much more about existence in my book below if you're interested :) :)
 
Jan 26, 2020
2
2
515
The Big Bang is "simply" a failure to understand the meaning of infinity. Our math (devised by the Arabs, I think?) fails when we try to get too close to the extremes at either end of The Infinite. The Big Bang is nothing more than the Pope trying to muffle Galileo. I'm an apostle of the Steinhardt/Turok "Endless Universe" - but they have probably moved on from that; I'm ten years behind the times.
Hi, I guess you didn't agree with any of my musings above. Here you said: "All came about in that split second of the big bang" Are you suggesting you can have something from nothing? What do you see wrong in my proposition (2) from post No 12 above?:

(2) Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means there has always been something – and that also means before the big bang!

Much more about existence in my book below if you're interested :) :)
Consciousness is the guiding principle of existence ( existence includes all universes) .
What is the use of having a universe if it can’t enjoy itself. We are the universe looking back at ourselves and each one of us is the center of the universe.
 
Consciousness is the guiding principle of existence ( existence includes all universes) .
What is the use of having a universe if it can’t enjoy itself. We are the universe looking back at ourselves and each one of us is the center of the universe.
Your post seems to lean a bit too far towards philosophy and poetry for me to understand, but it sounds good anyway :)
 
Dec 11, 2019
533
198
560
Consciousness is the guiding principle of existence ( existence includes all universes) .
What is the use of having a universe if it can’t enjoy itself. We are the universe looking back at ourselves and each one of us is the center of the universe.
I think you are onto something with that. Consciousness is the first clause. What consciousness imagines it can create and is infinitely creating.
 
Jan 26, 2020
2
2
515
Every point in the universe is the center of the universe. Right. So that point of awareness in your head is the center of the universe. The one without a second .
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS