The True Origin of The Universe?

And that obsession will continue unabated.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most that have been here for any length of time, see that "bureaucratically official" ranting, as an effort to try and convince others, he is a scientist of some renown.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In summing of this thread, and moving away from the nonsense, The BB model of Universal evolution, is really the only objective choice we have re the origin of the Universe, according to current physics and GR.
Speculative extensions on that model do not take away from that hotter denser state from which the Universe evolved.


But I'm waiting for any other suggestions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not only our religionist friends FR, but the incessant babbling coming from other our delusional alternative hypothesis pusher friends and their obvious lay closet supporters.

I certainly agree with "reasonable faith also, although I can understand why others like Grumpy [from memory] are adverse to its use in science.

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'

Max Planck:

 

The last 150 years or so have seen the progress of all disciplines of science advance at staggering rates.
We are doing quite well with some theories obtaining "near certain" status, like BB, SR, GR, Evolution and Abiogenesis.
Far more yet to be discovered and done, but we will get there as long as most scientists continue with their objective work and observations.

I said it in another post, but worth mentioning again.
Without science, its quite probable the human race may be extinct.
We certainly have science to thank for where we are today.

 

*** To any and all concerned Members ***

I, dmoe, have never made, and will never make any effort at all to convince anyone that I, dmoe, am or ever have been "a scientist of some renown".
I, dmoe, have only stated, and will only ever state that I have been professionally educated(Universities) and professionally employed in various Scientific disciplines for 'nigh on 40 years.

I suffer no need to, nor any impetus to lie, embellish or in any other way, shape or form express anything other than honesty.

 

You keep saying that.
Just saying.

 

For some things, many things, there is not, or simply can not be, sufficient evidence to warrant any significant degree of certainty. You can either call it "inconclusive" or pick whatever you consider is the most plausible explanation. In any case don't expect those answers to ever reach over, say 50% certainty. But then, everything is always just an opinion, so different people will believe different things with different degrees of certainty. My answer to those questions is: inconclusive.

Indeed, why not? I agree with those questions, I see no good answer.

1.) Yes, the origin of the universe is very likely not answerable question to any satisfying degree of certainty, say over 50%. 2.) I indeed do believe the universe existed for ever. I believe the Big Bang, if there was such thing at all, is just a small part of the "master universe" which is eternal and infinite.

 

That's rather nice.
The thing is we have much evidence supporting the BB to around 98% certainty, and nothing supporting your hypothesis.

 

Again you have no evidence supporting such a hypothesis, while the BB has plenty.
So a few questions.....whether you chose to answer or not is of no great concern, other then to obviously paint yourself into a corner...
[1] Why do you chose to belief such an unsupported scenario?
[2] Is the reason so as to paint yourself, as being able to think for yourself?...and wear this self thinking like a badge of honour?
[3] Is it just a copout due to religious agenda somehow: Afterall you have told dmoe you think its a viable alternative, when in actual fact, it is not a scientific one.
[4] Is it a general anti mainstream bias you see the need to promote, like so many other unsuccessful alternative hypothesis pushers?
[5] Or is it something else?

 

I don't have a hypothesis I call it "inconclusive", and I already explained in details how and why I arrive to such conclusion. You can see from the Moon your 98% is irrationally overconfident estimate. You believe in BB almost as much you believe you have a nose on your face? The evidence for those two are not even in the same category, one is based on direct evidence and the other on indirect evidence, billions of years away kind of indirect evidence. You have direct evidence galaxies are moving apart, maybe, and that's it, everything else you believe about it is just one of many possible speculations.

 

You mean eternal and infinite "master universe"? It's not hypothesis, it's what is left when I throw out all the inconclusive theories. It's just that which remains, it's there by default, the only thing that can not be cut out by the Occam's razor.

 

Yes it is an hypothesis...most assuredly...and one without a scrap of evidence to support it.
And your delusional qualities about inconclusiveness with regards to the BB, is just plain old pseudocrap.
You may deny it as much as you like, and hide behind your "badge of honour" in regards to thinking for oneself, but as the science cheer leader, I have one thing going for me, and of course mainstream science....and that is I'm right.

 

What has the Moon got to do with the 98% BB certainty....and not my numbers either, as put to me by an Astronomer and agreed by most expert in that discipline.
The rest of your post is just denial of the obvious and misinterpretation to prop up your own "Look at me: I thought of it" ideas without any basis in reality.
The following observations support the BB.
[1] Observed expansion: Distant Galactic redshift measured and observed:

[2] CMBR: The BB predicts that this glow should exist, and that it should be obvious as the microwave part of the EMS at 2.7K:

[3] Abundance of light elements: [The BB predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies matches that.

[4] The particle zoo verified to a great extent and as predicted by the BB:

The point is at this stage of your game, is what good is flexing that badge of honour you so proudly hold aloft for all to see, when you are so demonstrably wrong?
It's certainly not changing science, the scientific method and the peer review system which supports it.

 

You have no clue. It's logical (mathematical) description of "space" based on direct evidence 3 spatial dimensions exist. There is nothing absurd about it, pure logic, it's called Euclidean Geometry.

 

humbleteleskop, thank you for your thoughts on the rhetorical questions proffered by Carl Sagan contained within the premise of the OP.

The "Topic" of the OP was : The True Origin of The Universe?
The "question posed at the end of it" was : After all, whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

I cannot and will not assume nor presume to fully understand your "position" from your Posted response. Hence, I ask the following questions to establish further clarification of your "Position".

1.) - Are you stating that owing to your own hypothesis or theory of a "master universe" which is eternal and infinite, that there would be NO Origin of that : "master universe" which is eternal and infinite?

2.) - Are you stating that again owing to your own hypothesis or theory of a "master universe" which is eternal and infinite, that the question posed at the end of my OP is somehow "moot", "meaningless" or "not worthy of consideration"?

humbleteleskop, I pose these queries only in the interest of further clarification of your "position".
I am NOT in any way, shape or form, trying to malign or argue against your "position".

 

Creation of the universe according to Bible violates fundamental laws of physics and logic. Creation of space and time according to BB violates fundamental laws of logic.

The space and time of the eternal and infinite "master universe" has always existed, with no beginning and no end. I don't know if I can say anything about matter and whether it too always existed or not, it's inconclusive. BB is possible in this "master universe", it's just that it can not create the time and space as it expands, but it can expand within already existing time and space of the "master universe" that it is a part of.

That would be the first question I answered in this post. It's not meaningless or moot, I find the answer is pretty clear.

 

Sorry, humbleteleskop, but you seem to commenting on the preface to the "question" - whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event" - and not the actual "question" itself.

I did not ask whether or not the "Creation of the universe according to Bible violates fundamental laws of physics and logic".
Nor did I ask whether or not the "Creation of space and time according to BB violates fundamental laws of logic".

The Actual "question" was does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

Again, sorry, humbleteleskop, but the "answer" that you see as "pretty clear", is actually no more than your own subjective comments on the preface to the "question" - whether by "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event" - and not the actual "question" itself.

Once again, humbleteleskop, the Actual "question" was, and still is, does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

 

What part of your question do you believe I did not address and why? Be specific please.

Define the meaning of "fundamental laws of the Universe".
Explain or describe the meaning of "...as they are NOW".

Give me some examples of "fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW".

 

humbleteleskop, a single example :
"A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer."
- Bruce Lee