The True Origin of The Universe?

[dumbest man on earth]

If you say so.

But then again, I have posted two versions of what you see this discussion should be about...see post 37 :shrug: again.

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 :

The True Origin of The Universe?
...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?

as for your Post #37 :

...once more...

The True Origin of The Universe?
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?

So are we discussing your first claim, or the second?

paddoboy, I made neither a "first claim", nor a "second" in my OP - I asked two (2) questions.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

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!)

 

[dumbest man on earth]

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!)

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 :

The True Origin of The Universe?
...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?

Do you have any thoughts on the actual Topic of my OP, Gerry Nightingale?

 

[paddoboy]

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.

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.

I Started the OP to spur a discussion on :

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

as for your Post #37 :


paddoboy, I made neither a "first claim", nor a "second" in my OP - I asked two (2) questions.

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.

 

[paddoboy]

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!)

That post in its near entirety, is quite nonsensical and gobbldydook.

 

[paddoboy]

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

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 Started the OP to spur a discussion on :

I certainly hope that is true, and that what origin alluded to is wrong.

DMOE this just seems like trolling, because it is clear that the Big Bang has scientific evidence and genesis has only the bible. I guess all I can say is, it will be interesting to see if you can achieve your goal with this thread.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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.

 

[paddoboy]

"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?"

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.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

That was a quote from the OP & my response to it. Maybe I wasn't clear. I probably should have put his quote at the top & my reversing of the other thing at the bottom.

I've read about that tho I think it wasn't at that website.

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

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!)

 

[dumbest man on earth]

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!)

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 :

The True Origin of The Universe? 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?

However, as you have no doubt noticed, anyone seems to be free to Post whatever they want, in whatever Thread they want...so...

 

[paddoboy]

However, as you have no doubt noticed, anyone seems to be free to Post whatever they want, in whatever Thread they want...so...

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.

 

[Enmos]

If Gerry or whoever he is [nudge nudge, wink, wink]

If Gerry is a sock he hides it well (IP-wise anyway).

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

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)

 

[paddoboy]

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.

BEC's...
A little extract....
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
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.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

That's sour grapes and you know it.

Of course, it is.

You appear to be constantly criticising something or other adinfinitum. sheesh

Of course, "adinfinitum. sheesh".

If Gerry or whoever he is [nudge nudge, wink, wink] has any alternative idea, he should take it to the appropriate forum.

Of course, he "[nudge nudge, wink, wink]" should.

 

[James R]

dmoe:

James R., have you read the OP? :

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

James R., you state : "likely to be different".
Would you care to "elaborate" on what those "likely" differences "in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being" just might be?
Would you care to "elaborate" on how those "likely" differences "in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being" would be discerned?

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.

I was born very curious and inquisitive, therefore it is more important for me to gain true knowledge than it is to merely accept a belief

That's good to hear.

James R., I find you asking me that question, in all honesty, to be somewhat personally "insulting"!

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.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

James R. :

dmoe:

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

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

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.

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".

That's good to hear.

Grok'd!

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.

I do not remember anyone ever referring to me as "precious" before. At any rate, I wrote :

My personal opinion is that it is a "Fool's Game" to even seriously ponder the "origin of the Universe".
Why, you may ask?

So, okay.This Mr. Sagan, was in my estimation :
1.) - most likely more intelligent than myself.
2.) - definitely more educated than myself.
3.) - absolutely in possession of quite a bit more knowledge about the subject than I ever will be.

After contemplating Mr. Sagan's writings, and admitting to myself the 3 things enumerated above, I honestly find myself accepting, what Mr. Sagan opined :

- "that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question."
- "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed."

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?".

So I asked you whether you want to know the Truth about how the universe came to be.

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 :

dmoe: I guess the question to ask is: don't you care about what is True?

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.

Given what you posted, I don't think that was an insult.

...see above...

I'm sorry if you took my question the wrong way.

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? :

Would you care to "elaborate" on how those "likely" differences "in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being" would be discerned?

James R., thank you for your time and consideration.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

In reply to post # 57.

Gerry Nightingale, are you possibly referring to the Post in which I stated, quite clearly :

Gerry Nightingale, then you may want to start a Thread on that Topic.

I said I was sorry if I intruded,

Of course, you did.

and yes, Einstein/Bose "condensate" was and is valid,

Of course, it is.

and does not change current properties/fundamental laws.

Of course.

(I assume that you wrote a "Topic" that invited comment)

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, then you may want to start a Thread on that Topic.

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.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

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.

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.