I think everything can also be explained by the 'always existed' speculation.
Of course, but you know, it becomes so effortless.
I think everything can also be explained by the 'always existed' speculation.
Lol, The effort really beings after the Triangle of Cosmological Explanations, i.e. with dealing with the observables like the raw redshift data and the cosmic microwave background.Of course, but you know, it becomes so effortless.
Not necessarily. If you select 'always existed', and then go from there, the fist step is to look at what physical evidence there is. That evidence includes the redshift, and the CMBR, which are two good clues pointing to a t=0 in our Big Bang arena. But the 'always existed' means there can still be a "before" the t=0 of our Big Bang, and preconditions to our Big Bang from the greater universe, philosophically.You see, you have to answer for t = 0-. Either your hypo should eliminate t = 0- like BB does or should make it redundant. In always existed, you cannot answer this.
The below is a curious hypo, all original..
A photon cannot see another photon traveling, no relative motion between photons (we say that photon does not have a rest frame, revise it a bit.). So if no relative motion, no sense of time. All photons traveling at c, can be state 0, the garden of eden state, no flow of time. And then we got a state wherein a particle formed and we had v < c......time perception started henceforth.
While as yet we have no evidence for inflation, it does solve some problems and is held in high regard by the professionals.BB is full of issues, the inflation itself is inexplicable, and unanswerable question is presence of BB singularity, it could not have formed from nothing. How it was on the first place. But you can always assume photons traveling at c all around, you can designate this state as t = 0, no issues. Its a distinct t = 0 state, home state, irrespective of what was prior to that. Now weave around all the observations, I am confident everything can be explained with this hypo.
Infinity and all it entails is at least for me, hard to wrap my mind around.I think everything can also be explained by the 'always existed' speculation.
Interesting you should bring that up. Infinity is a philosophical topic also....
Infinity and all it entails is at least for me, hard to wrap my mind around.
But agreed, that in itself, does not make that impossible.![]()
Thanks for all of that Wellwisher, there is a lot to think about in there. My take is that it goes well beyond the aims of this thread, which is about the simple beginnings, and of answering some basic philosophical questions about the universe.At the speed of light, the fabric of space-time separates into separate threads of space and separate threads of time. One can follow a time thread without the interconnected limitation of space, or follow a space thread without the interconnected limitation of time. Time without the limitation of space allows one to be anywhere in the universe in zero time. This is traditionally called omnipresence. Space without the limitation of time, would allow one to know about the history of any point in space. This is traditionally called omniscience. Below is a picture of separated time threads.
![]()
These states can be inferred from special relativity. When V=C, universal space-time appears contracted to a point-instant, allowing one to occupy the entire point universe, simultaneously; omnipresence. Time=0, as defined by earthlings, is when the speed of light reference, slows to below C (non speed of light equivalent reference) allowing finite reference and space-time to integrate. This places limits of space and time, adding potential to the universe.
This analysis implies that the speed of light is the ground state of the universe, since this allow a state of maximum entropy, where space and time can act independently. To form the universe, we need to place limitations on this state of infinite entropy, by integrating space with time as space-time. This adds free energy to the universe; primordial atom. The subsequent evolution of the universe is the potential created at t=0, lowering back to the C ground state. This is reflected in the net universal conversion of matter (inertial) to energy (speed of light) via the forces of nature.
Do you accept, and let stand my comment that the 'Always existed' explanation automatically invokes the infinity of time?Interesting you should bring that up. Infinity is a philosophical topic also.
In my view, when developing your personal view of cosmology a step beyond just choosing a position on the 'beginning', there is another small set of possible characteristics of the universe to consider; I call them the Three Infinities; time, space, and energy.
After you make your choice from the Triangle, you have already taken a position for or against the infinity of 'time' choice. 'Always existed' invokes the infinity of time backward (no beginning), while 'something from nothing' invokes finite time (a beginning).
I certainly understand how people can have a problem wrapping their mind around the concept of infinity. I played mind games with myself for a long time before I got to the point that I can say I grasp it to the extent that I can invoke the Three Infinities.
I know how insignificant that statement seems on the surface. All we have done here is, to a limited extent, made a philosophical case for the eternal.
I think everything can also be explained by the 'always existed' speculation.
I understand the logic you are going for with that statement. Given infinite time, things can certainly repeat themselves, but the same logic may apply to suggest that given an infinite number of possible events, there is no need for them to ever repeat themselves.If we were to always exist everything may have happened before.
Maybe, but to me it is hard to imagine that is the case.There are so many shapes and colors. Infinity is a countless number, but your memory can only save so much. If hedonistic faith willed itself, and love were a given the universe would function with a volume. Infinity would be rendered impossible, and un-desired.
http://cosmometry.net/overview-of-cosmometryFrom the perspective of cosmometry, every manifestation in the Universe is a stepping down of this infinite energy potential into very small and discrete energy events. Even the most powerful nuclear explosion is but the most minute fraction of the true energy potential of the spacetime field, and yet in our human experience it's an enormous and truly life-threatening power. Tapping into the greater energy potential is not something to pursue lightly.
"What is implied by this proposal is that what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and that matter as we know it is a small, "quantized" wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea." - David Bohm
TAKEN FROM: http://cosmometry.net/infinite-energy-potential
The whole universe can be but an excitation of this infinite energy field. Including our bodies.
But I cannot subscribe to an "always existed" universe
Yet you subscribe to an "always existed" deity that created everything else?
So why not eliminate one unnecessary step, and consider the possibility that the universe may have always existed.
No it is speculative at this time, because the BB is not a theory of how the universe was created, its a theory of the evolution of spacetime from a hotter, denser state, at 10-43 seconds after the initial event.I never said that I exclude the possibility of an "always existed" universe. I just don't subscribe to it. It's not mainstream.
No it is speculative at this time, because the BB is not a theory of how the universe was created, its a theory of the evolution of spacetime from a hotter, denser state, at 10-43 seconds after the initial event.