The True Origin of The Universe?

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

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    I don't understand the words games you play. The title of the thread inquires into the truth of science, specifically the science leading to Big Bang Theory, but then you open with Creationist material. What in the world is subjective about me calling a spade a spade?

    Game on, then.

    I vaguely recall that you intimated this to me (covertly) on a couple of occasions. However that's unclear to me. However, your OP treats Creationism as something viable, or at least suitable for scientific discussion on cosmology. So what's up with that?

    I didn't get that memo. I'll take your word for it, noting that covert religious folks are common here.

    That's flaming. I'm simply attacking your OP where it reeks of creationism. All you have to do is to clarify your remarks.

    I see I've triggered your defense mechanism. Maybe if I had some reason to think you wanted to talk about any of the facts I entered, then I would apologize. I'm just leery of you, not quite ready to trust you, based on some bizarre repartee from past threads.

    If game playing were not your agenda, I think you would at least speak to the facts I raised. You can begin by entertaining the notion of time and space being created in the Big Bang. As I predicted, you showed no interest in participating in an actual scientific discussion about a topic in cosmology which pretty much trumps the OP. (There was no before.) Those are just the facts, no game there. Speak to them if that's your true intent. As I said, I always give leeway to folks who show sincerity.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Aqueous Id, I will respond to your first paragraph only.
    When and if you are able to read the actual words that I write, and not try to twist my meanings by adding anything other than the words actually typed by me - I may go on!

    I hope that you can understand that!


    I do not play word games on this Forum.
    If you just simply read the words that I Post - without being convinced or prejudiced and without trying to "READ" some imagined "Agenda" or underlying "Covert"..."Up is Down"..."Science is Fake"..."Praise be to Allah"..."Germs are Smarter than Humans"..."The Sky is Falling"...or whatever..into them - you may just be able to see and understand that fact.

    When you read a Textbook - do you try to eviscerate the information presented in it by pondering : is the guy that wrote this...short, bald and ugly?...does he/she believe in extramarital sex? this author a Republican?...

    If you have spent the time in Academia, then you do know, for a fact, Aqueous Id, that you must focus on the information presented - you must, I repeat, must maintain the Objective study of the evidence or information in front of you.
    That is a fundamental process of learning or acquiring a deep and lasting understanding of true knowledge.

    Can you accept what I have stated , so far?

    Aqueous Id, I have no doubt that you are intelligent and learned.
    I suffer no Envy, Jealousy, Disdain or anything of, toward or for you - along those lines!
    At the same time, I would thoroughly enjoy a world, where not one other living soul would suffer any of the same because of me.

    I absolutely enjoy open, honest and earnest discussions with anybody about anything!!

    Aqueous Id, "Games" - "Mind Games", "Word Games" - do nothing but severely inhibit the transfer of knowledge or information.
    You earned, from what I have gleaned from our previous...encounters, an education in some type of Psychology.
    You must be familiar with the term, "transference" or possibly "projection" : the act of projecting or placing attitudes, moods, desires...whatever, into another person - that are not in all actuality, there.

    So, I do not play games. Please let that sink in, if only for the time being, please...PLEASE??

    Here is a free morsel : check Post #58(my response to James R.) for my actual "God Botherer" stance.

    Aqueous Id, the title of this Thread is : The True Origin of The Universe?...I repeat : The True Origin of The Universe?
    The word "science" is NOT in the title.
    The words "leading to" are NOT in the title.
    There is absolutely NO MENTION of the Big Bang Theory - or any theory - in the title.

    The title is simply : The True Origin of The Universe? Six words!
    Possibly when you here or read the words "origin of the Universe" - you automatically default to your own personal(subjective) position that the Universe exists because of the Big Bang Theory?
    Only you can figure that out - it is not for me to decide, presume, assume, infer or draw any unsubstantiated conclusion.
    So...The title is simply : The True Origin of The Universe? Six words!
    Can you, and more importantly, will you accept that?

    Would it have made any difference if #1 and #2 were reversed?
    That might be a problem with "closed minded people" - but anyone claiming to actually believe in the further advancement of knowledge or science - absolutely must be OPEN to anything.
    Aqueous Id, there are Posters on this Forum who champions one of the Giants of science that actually witnessed an apple dropping and was Open Minded enough to develop an idea from that event that "Changed The World"!!
    So realistically, would it have mattered if #2 and #1 were reversed? Honestly?

    As for the :
    Well...maybe just possibly...maybe, can you, Aqueous Id, give me, dmoe, the merest, tiniest little iota of "benefit of the doubt", that I might just NOT be the "spade" that - for whatever reason -whether you have been led to believe, or you have just plain misperceived - you seem to need to believe that I am?

    No. Absolutely "NO Game on", Aqueous Id! I do not and will not play games.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Addressing the science and the science only in this post.....
    Fact[1] The word science is not in the title. Fact [2] You are in the astronomy forum. Fact[3] That is for discussing science, particularly Astronomy, Cosmology and Exobiology. Fact[4] Science is open minded, hence the definition of a scientific theory, which always remains open for further interpretations in line with further and further observations. Fact[5] Religion/Creationism and God Botherers in general, do not and are not covered by the broad scientific discipline. In other words it is not science.Fact [6] The BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution is the default incumbent model of the origin/evolution of the Universe. Fact [7] The BB is so wholly and totally and logically supported, due to the plethora of evidence, that any future QGT, will almost certainly encompass the BB.Fact[8] Your lengthy preamble about creationism and a magical deity is not science. Fact [9] This is a science forum and mythical stories should not be tolerated.Fact [10] Objective Truth/Factual/Reality are what scientific theories strive to achieve. The longer they match observational evidence, the more they continually make correct predictions, the closer to reality/truth/Fact, that theory becomes.

    In fact some theories are rightly projected as "FACT" due to their sturdiness and continued passing of peer review and observations. eg: Who in their right mind, doubts the heliocentric Solar system theory?

    Taking all that into consideration, I see it as a logical, natural objective claim to declare, that to the best of our current knowledge, the BB was the origin of the Universe, without too much reasonable doubt.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Something about it unclear?
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Not as far as I'm aware - I should clarify that they exist consecutively, not simultaneously, if that's not already obvious.

    That's oone interpretation, as I understand it, there are more literal interpretations.

    I'm not saying it isn't real. I'm saying that the term 'singularity' is like the terms 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'. They're placeholders for things that we do not yet have the physics to accurately describe.

    That's not quite how I meant it. What I am saying is that something real exists at the very center of a black-hole. I don't know what that thing is, nobody does, because relativity doesn't know. String theory might, so might holographic information theory, but relativity does not. It just throws its hands up in the air and says "Ain't gonna happ'n cap'n!" That's what the singularity in relativity is telling us - or at least, what I think it is telling us.

    This is essentially what I was saying, yes.

    This is part of the point that I was making. I wasn't saying that there is no answer, but rather that relativity doesn't have it - we need some kind of new physics to explain the interior of a black hole.
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Maybe another day. In the meantime, ask Fraggle Rocker for his take on String Theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    You mean the Singularity of a BH?
    Obviously we will never be able to venture past the BH's EH, but GR does say that once matter is squeezed beyond its Schwarzchild radius, further collapse is compulsory so to speak, at least to the quantum/Planck/Singularity region.
    So like I said, just critically curved spacetime.
    Although the Kerr, Kerr-Newman,types offer some interesting alternatives with regards to the ring Singularity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Might then start a thread on string and its derivitives soon...
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    No, I mean the interior of a black hole - everything inside the event horizon. The only thing that we can infer at this moment is that relativity is accurate right up to the event horizon or the last stable orbit, to within our ability to measure those events.

    We also know that relativity is incomplete, we know this because it is largely incompatable with quantum mechanics and it gives us infinities.

    As i've said - this suggests that there are conditions where the predictions of relativity deviate increasingly from reality.

    Well, we already know black holes rotate so I'm not quite sure why people are still fixated on schwarzchild singularities.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Certainly correct at this time, but also I'm sure that the Schwarzchild BH/Singularity, will be the ultimate fate of all BH's as spin and charge are negated.

    But essentially, I'm in agreement. I suppose it's the extreme mathematical difficulty.

    The most interesting aspect of any Kerr type BH and ring singularity, is that if some future advanced civilisation could enter the EH, at the polar extremities, of a large enough BH to minimize spaghetification, one could pass through the ring singularity without being torn to shreds.
    But where would he pass into?
    A mind boggling awesome scenario to picture!
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    My recollection is that some black holes are spinning up, not spinning down - the govrerning factor being the relationship between the rotation of the black hole and the rotation of its accretion disk. I'm fairly sure I saw an article in the last twelve months or so about the discovery of a blackhole that appeared to be spinning near the theroretical upper limit.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    What you say is probably correct. But I am speaking of the distant future...accretion disks will eventually disappear...A BH will eventually sweep out an area devoid of matter, and then over time, [at least in the way I view the topic] spin should be negated eventually.
    Do you agree?

    Although while doing some googling, some BH's appear to spin mighty fast!

    How fast do black holes spin?
    Feb 14, 2014 by Fraser Cain, Universe Today

    There is nothing in the Universe more awe inspiring or mysterious than a black hole. Because of their massive gravity and ability to absorb even light, they defy our attempts to understand them. All their secrets hide behind the veil of the event horizon.

    What do they look like? We don't know. They absorb all the radiation they emit. How big are they? Do they have a size, or could they be infinitely dense? We just don't know. But there are a few things we can know. Like how massive they are, and how fast they're spinning.
    Wait, what? Spinning?

    Consider the massive star that came before the black hole. It was formed from a solar nebula, gaining its rotation by averaging out the momentum of all the individual particles in the cloud. As mutual gravity pulled the star together, through the conservation of angular momentum it rotated more rapidly. When a star becomes a black hole, it still has all that mass, but now compressed down into an infinitesimally smaller space. And to conserve that angular momentum, the black hole's rate of rotation speeds up… a lot.The entire history of everything the black hole ever consumed, averaged down to a single number: the spin rate.

    If the black hole could shrink down to an infinitely small size, you would think that the spin rate might increase to infinity too. But black holes have a speed limit.

    "There is a speed limit to the spin of a black hole. It's sort of set by the faster a black hole spins, the smaller is its event horizon."
    That's Dr. Mark Morris, a professor of astronomy at UCLA. He has devoted much of his time to researching the mysteries of black holes.
    "There is this region, called the ergosphere between the event horizon and another boundary, outside. The ergosphere is a very interesting region outside the event horizon in which a variety of interesting effects can occur."
    Imagine the event horizon of a black hole as a sphere in space, and then surrounding this black hole is the ergosphere. The faster the black hole spins, the more this ergosphere flattens out.
    "The speed limit is set by the event horizon, eventually, at a high enough spin, reaches the singularity. You can't have what's called a naked singularity. You can't have a singularity exposed to the rest of the Universe. That would mean that the singularity itself could emit energy or light and somebody outside could actually see it. And that can't happen. That's the physical limitation of how fast it can spin. Physicists use units for angular momentum that are cast in terms of mass, which is a curious thing, and the speed limit can be described as the angular momentum equals the mass of the black hole, and that sets the speed limit."

    Just imagine. The black hole spins up to the point that it's just about to reveal itself. But that's impossible. The laws of physics won't let it spin any faster. And here's the amazing part. Astronomers have actually detected supermassive black holes spinning at the limits predicted by these theories.
    One black hole, at the heart of galaxy NGC 1365 is turning at 84% the speed of light. It has reached the cosmic speed limit, and can't spin any faster without revealing its singularity.
    The Universe is a crazy place.

    Read more at:
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Since it has been decided that logically and scientifically speaking, the BB is really the only answer to the origin/evolution of the Universe/spacetime, a pertinent question would be, what part did BH's play in this?
    Is/was the BB the arse end of a BH from another Universe/spacetime?
    Or was the BB just one of many BB's arising from the quantum foam?
    Either way though I think, supports the logical speculative claim, that the Universe is the ultimate free lunch.
  17. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    So...paddoboy, you appear to be violating your own Posted "simple procedure #[1]" :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from :

    So...will you follow your own Posted "simple procedure #[2]", and :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from :

    paddoboy, will you gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claim that "it has been decided that logically and scientifically speaking, the BB is really the only answer to the origin/evolution of the Universe/spacetime", and present it, please?

    An even more "pertinent question would be" : Who "decided that logically and scientifically speaking, the BB is really the only answer to the origin/evolution of the Universe/spacetime"?
    So...paddoboy, surely you will follow your own Posted "simple procedure #[7]" :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from : surely will not violate your own Posted "simple procedure #[7]".

    In reference to the following :
    paddoboy, have you not pointed out to other Members, numerous times, that there is an "Alternative Theories" section on SciForums?
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Not in the least, and has been explained to you more than once.
    Let's have another go...Scientific Theories, as they continue to match observational and experimental data, over time do logically grow in certainty.
    Do you believe we orbit the Sun?
    Other theories such as SR, GR, Evolution and Abiogenesis are up near the top rung, so certain, that to not class them as near fact, is not giving them the credit they deserve and require.

    The evidence is there for you to examine if you wish.
    I've presented the four main pillars that support the BB to you before.
    If you have any competing alternative theory, please present that data and we will see how it aligns with the incumbent model.

    It's the model supported by most evidence.
    I don't know of any other scientific model for the evolution of the Universe.

    It's not an alternative theory.[the pre BB speculation]
    I present it as a logical speculative assumption which aligns with the present laws of physics and GR.
    So I don't need to put it in alternative theory section.
    Oh, and dmoe, you have tried that one with me now twice and have been shown to be in error twice.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The steady state theory as upheld by Fred Hoyle was a theory that had some support in the early fifties.
    It predicts a continuous creation of matter [a rather illogical and unexplained phenomena] in a Universe with no beginning and no end.
    Pretty obvious in my opinion why Hoyle preferred it.
    Observations in the 60's though did not support it, and strengthened the BB.

    Oscillating theory:

    This theory predicts a never ending series of cyclic expansions and collapses, again something we don't observe.
    Irrespective though, all this theory in fact does, is extend on the BB.
    The beginning of the expansion cycle, is what we have data for as the BB.

    Other thoughts are that if the cycles were as predicted, why do we not see any distant galaxies blue shifted, on the return journey so to speak.

    The Plasma/Electric Universe theory is relatively recent, and was made redundant near as soon as it gained notoriety.
  20. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    ...just a friendly reminder...

  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Something about it unclear?
  22. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    That's absolutely true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end, isn't that the truth? The answer is no. Those are all evidence only for some explosion. But there is no any reason to call that explosion "universe", or to say it created time and that there is nothing beyond it. It's naive and illogical to pose such artificial constraints, akin to medieval belief that the Earth has an edge, completely unnecessary assumptions. There is no any evidence to believe the Big Bang is not just one of infinitely many little puffs going on in an infinite "that which contains everything" - the master universe.

    Bend the words, and you will bend the reality. "Universe" should never change its definition, it should always mean "master universe", it's supposed to be infinite and eternal. It's not really supposed to describe reality in materialistic terms, but logical, as an abstract and absolute reference grid within which practical and relative definitions can exist. By bending this reference grid into practical definition we lose the anchor to logic, and without it we get circular reasoning and self-referencing contradiction, a cause which is an effect of itself, an egg that laid a chicken which grew up to be the egg it originally came from, i.e. "Big Bang".
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    You have been given the evidence supporting the BB.
    Perhaps you should also know, that the BB was a derisive term applied by Fred Hoyle, that stuck.
    In other words there was no explosion in the accepted sense. All there was, was an evolution of space and time.

    The rest of your post, as well as part of what I have copied, is rather confusing to say the least.

Share This Page