The True Origin of The Universe?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dumbest man on earth, Jun 9, 2014.

  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Actually, paddoboy, you have Posted 28 of the 46 Posts in this Thread (so far), and each and every one of them has been about what you, paddoboy, see this discussion should be about...see those 28 Posts :shrug: again.

    I Started the OP to spur a discussion on :
    as for your Post #37 :
    paddoboy, I made neither a "first claim", nor a "second" in my OP - I asked two (2) questions.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to DMOE, re: your thread topic.

    NO. There was no BB. And every experiment which supports it as questionable, such as using QM theory to support and provide "foundations", when in fact what is occurring

    is using a "quantum" colander to "sieve" results...only aspects which support "BB" are allowed thru, the rest are discarded as "inconclusive" or not "pertinent".

    .....

    Did some Deity create everything? Not likely, IMO. I cannot disprove God. Nor can anyone "prove" there is God.

    .....

    (If I have intruded on your thread, I'm sorry)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Gerry Nightingale, re: my thread topic :
    - whether or not there was a BB - is irrelevant.
    - whether or not some Deity created everything - is irrelevant.

    I Started the OP to spur a discussion on :
    Do you have any thoughts on the actual Topic of my OP, Gerry Nightingale?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    No, not really, each of my 28 posts were concerning your OP, and the continued confusion you appear to be under as to what is relevant and what isn't.


    And I have contributed to that with plenty of factual material and objective evidence and scenarios.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes you did make two claims, as I have shown.

    Plus of course we still have a couple of loose ends with regards to honest answers to questions I have raised of you.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    That post in its near entirety, is quite nonsensical and gobbldydook.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2014
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    Well obviously one is a well supported scientific theory, the other is a human myth, based on times not long after we climbed down out of the trees.

    I certainly hope that is true, and that what origin alluded to is wrong.
     
  10. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,195
    1.) - "IF...a Creator is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions."
    2.) - "What were conditions like at the time of Creation?"
    3.) - "What happened before thatCreation?"
    4.) - "Was there a god, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing?"
    5.) - "How does that happen?"


    "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?"


    The universe is what we would expect it to be if there are no gods. The more we figure out, the more we see no necessity for gods to fill gaps in our understanding. There is absolutely no evidence of super powerful benevolent gods doing a damn thing to help us. Even IF some of the wild claims were to be true, they would be more plausibly explained by some being(s) more powerful than humans yet just as natural a part of this universe. The god portrayed in the christian HolyBabble is too frigging contradictory to be true. I guess it is possible there is a god that created everything in such a way as to show no sign of it but what good is that beyond 3 seconds consideration. IF there is a god, either it does not want me to know or it cannot tell me or it does not care. Where are the gods & why the heck are they hiding. If Donald Duck created the universe from his farts, does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW? The vast majority of what people claim of gods just plain does not make any damn sense. Gods were created in the image of man.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    There is a post or two on this thread, explaining a logical speculative scenario, of how the Universe is probably the "Ultimate free lunch" at post 12 and
    http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

    My own thoughts on this question of the fundamental laws of the Universe, were that they arose, or were melded in with the evolution of space and time at the BB, depending on the exact nature of that BB.
    A speculative scenario, [which is all this is, albeit a reasonably logical one based on what we already know] has it that our BB arose from the quantum foam, due to some fluctuation, and probably just being one fluctuation, among many...some with different fundamental laws or constants, that saw them arise, and collapse in comparative quick time, while others just were not conducive to life as we know it.

    All in all, taking into account that in an effort to appear logical, the Catholic church even now recognises the BB and the Evolutionary theory of life.
    This then shows that the bible is a book of fairy tales.
    From that point though [the BB] they immediatley use the present limitations of science and cosmology, by preaching that the BB is/was the work of this deity.
    Science on the other hand, in line with its (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) meaning, are still searching and observing.
     
  12. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,195
     
  13. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to DMOE, re: your # 49 reply.

    Yes, I have "thoughts" regarding a "spontaneous" event. Please refer to Einstein-Bose "condensate" theory, as I believe it applies, at least in principle, to your Topic.

    (to go further would be complete speculation on my part, with nothing to support it)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Gerry Nightingale, then you may want to start a Thread on that Topic.

    I would prefer that this Thread be confined to the Highlighted part of the Topic of my OP, as repeated below :
    However, as you have no doubt noticed, anyone seems to be free to Post whatever they want, in whatever Thread they want...so...
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    That's sour grapes and you know it.
    You appear to be constantly criticising something or other adinfinitum. sheesh
    If Gerry or whoever he is [nudge nudge, wink, wink] has any alternative idea, he should take it to the appropriate forum.
     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    If Gerry is a sock he hides it well (IP-wise anyway).
     
  17. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to post # 57.

    I said I was sorry if I intruded, and yes, Einstein/Bose "condensate" was and is valid, and does not change current properties/fundamental laws.

    (I assume that you wrote a "Topic" that invited comment)
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    BEC's...
    A little extract....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74640/Bose-Einstein-condensate-BEC

    BEC theory traces back to 1924, when Bose considered how groups of photons behave. Photons belong to one of the two great classes of elementary or submicroscopic particles defined by whether their quantum spin is a nonnegative integer (0, 1, 2, …) or an odd half integer (1/2, 3/2, …). The former type, called bosons, includes photons, whose spin is 1. The latter type, called fermions, includes electrons, whose spin is 1/2.
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    The Interesting and note worthy part is of course how BEC's were theorised way back in 1924, and only first realised in the Lab in 1995.
     
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Of course, it is.
    Of course, "adinfinitum. sheesh".
    Of course, he "[nudge nudge, wink, wink]" should.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    dmoe:

    Obviously, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have replied to the thread.

    For example, if you're a Christian who believes that God is a loving god concerned with the welfare of human beings, then you'd expect that God would act to prevent various types of evil in the world - you know, bad things happening to good people and all that. Whereas, if there were no loving God, then we'd see bad things happen to good people about as often as good things happen. That is, we'd see innocent people being killed in natural disasters or being the victims of crime, for example.

    That's good to hear.

    I think you're being a bit precious. You wrote about how you thought that asking about the origins of the universe might be a waste of time. So I asked you whether you want to know the Truth about how the universe came to be. Given what you posted, I don't think that was an insult. I'm sorry if you took my question the wrong way.
     
  21. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    James R. :

    Great. I only asked because it is "obvious" that some Posters fail to fully read and fully understand, prior to Posting responses or replies.

    I only took Theological Studies in college as a source of easy "credits" - it was not one of my Majors.
    My response to your "example"...well, there are numerous and various "Theological" answers that could be proffered concerning those observations.
    However, being that I lend as much credence to "Theology and/or Religion", as I do to "Cult of Personality" or "Scientific Dogma"...I will leave the addressing of your example to the Posters on this Forum who claim to "Know"...those..."answers".

    Grok'd!

    I do not remember anyone ever referring to me as "precious" before. At any rate, I wrote :
    I freely admit that Mr. Sagan knew much more than myself about those things...so I gleaned knowledge from the man.
    Mind you, James R., I do not claim to be as Knowledgeable about those things as Mr. Sagan, or more Knowledgeable about those things than Mr. Sagan (as some Posters on this Forum evidently are !),
    In essence, i stated that I basically concurred with Carl Sagan's position on the issue - the "Fool's Game" was my condensed version of what I went on to present following my written "Why, you may ask?".

    If you had composed the "question" as you have composed it ^^above^^ - then I would not have considered it at all "insulting"...however, the actual question you asked of me was :
    At any rate, as I tried to express in the OP : If Carl Sagan could accept - "that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question.", and
    - "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed." - then that I, dmoe, had no qualms about accepting it also.
    Therefore, I care more about adding to my knowledge, or Truth of how the Universe actually "IS" - as opposed to engaging in a "Fools Game" by trying to answer "an unanswerable question" as to how the Universe came to be.

    ...see above...

    If, indeed, I "took" your "question the wrong way" - then you have no need to be "sorry".

    If, indeed, I "took" your "question the wrong way" - then I extend my most sincere apologies to you, James R.!

    BTW, since you like having your questions answered. May I request that you may possibly see fit to answer the following question from my previous response to you? :
    James R., thank you for your time and consideration.
     
  22. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Gerry Nightingale, are you possibly referring to the Post in which I stated, quite clearly :
    Of course, you did.

    Of course, it is.

    Of course.

    You are free to "assume" anything you want to, Gerry Nightingale. You are even free to "presume", or "misconstrue", or "infer", or "fabricate", or "intrude"...etc.

    Of course, Gerry Nightingale, you could choose to exhibit a tiny bit of respect, and exercise your freedom to "fully read", "fully comprehend" and "fully understand" the following :
    Gerry Nightingale, you are relatively new to SciForums, so if you honestly want to adopt the "Posting Etiquette" of the most prolific of Posters in this Thread, then you are also free to do exactly that.

    And, that is, of course, Okay.
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Sagan didn't live long enough to see that assumption challenged by a new generation of cosmologists.

    Today we have the hypothesis that the Big Bang did not only result in the existence of all the matter and energy in the universe (or all the quarks, leptons and bosons, depending on your favorite model of reality). It's hypothesized that the Big Bang resulted in the existence of the universe itself.
    • There was no space-time continuum before the Big Bang.
    • There were no natural laws before the Big Bang: no pV=nRT, no s=.5*at^2.
    • There were no rules of mathematics and arithmetic before the Big Bang: no 1+1=2.
    • There were no rules of logic before the Big Bang. If all A's are B's and all B's are C's there might be some A's that are not C's.
    • There were no dimensions before the Big Bang. No distance, time, mass, etc.
    The origin of the universe may turn out to be an answerable question after all.
     

Share This Page