BANG and Here We Are!!

[rphcomposer]

just read a book.. starseed transmission. It states all vibrational systems expand and the contract. Time will stop at this point briefly. It is what the mayans predicted at 2012 , the hindus and other legends call it the second coming and return of the gods. This does not happen at once throughout universe but travels like a wave. A wave of non time. What u think?

[hoygans]

The increased speed of expansion of the universe is explained by the repulsive properties of dark matter, which is theorized to occupy up to 85% of the universe.

[mirrorfreespeech]

The problem with this notion is, everything physically connected to the universe, IS PART OF that same universe. That's not playing with definitions, that's simply the way they these words are defined.

And sorry, but there is not a single shred of evidence to even suggest that there is a creator in the first place. All you claim is that nothing can achieve motion without an outside force, which is simply untrue. If something is unstable, it doesn't need an outside force to be put into motion.

[muncastro]

Ah it was so much easier for atheists/pantheists when science taught that the universe is infinite in both space and time. Now we know that the universe is not infinite spacially. And there is no evidence that the universe existed before a certain moment in time (when time, as we know it itself, began to exist). The truth is that there is nothing eternal about this finite universe. Some people need to get over their desire to believe otherwise.

[jakedevon]

Of course there is a Creator.  Matter can't create itself.

[GideonWells]

The universe always was. The Big Bang is a term from a pastor or priest who wanted to make fun of the concept.

In reality, it's a glorified scaled up example of how an unpacked suitcase taking up much more room than it seems you could fit in one.

All matter was here all along. Just very super compact till the zippers broke.

Still, where did that matter come from?

Who is the creator's creator?

*shrugs*

[jakedevon]

"The universe always was."

Scientifically, that's not possible.

There cannot have been an infinite amount of time behind us, because infinity is not a real number.

Also, if you know anything about the second law of thermodynamics, then you know that the universe would have died from heat death long ago- if it was infinitely old.

[GideonWells]

Under the current laws of physics, yes.

However, the big "bang" was the breakup of a singularity where all the universe and its compotents were nigh "infinitely" condensed.

As it "unzipped" to use my luggage analogy, the forces of physics began ripping apart from the "Super force".

Gravity was first, followed soon by the other three the Strong, Weak Nuclear forces and electro-magnetism.

The universe always "was". Just not in the way we know it.

[jakedevon]

"Under the current laws of physics, yes."

Ha, ha!

You expecting them to change anytime soon?

"The universe always "was"."

Not according to the science of mathematics. We can't have an infinite amount of time behind us because infinity is not a real number.

You seem to be saying that you don't believe in the science of mathematics or the science of mathematics.

Myself, I'll stick with science.

[GideonWells]

Then you should know that we can't go back to the exact singularity yet, but the barest fraction of a second before hand.

The scientific concept of "Theory of Everything" is the eventual and hoped for merging Gravity back into the other three forces in our equation.

We can put the other three back together, but not gravity yet.

The equations exist just like calculus did before Newton. We just have to find them. Then we can move backwards towards the next multigenerational hurdle.

[jakedevon]

"Then you should know that we can't go back to the exact singularity yet, but the barest fraction of a second before hand."

Ha, ha!

What experiment verified that theory?

You've been watching too much stargate atlantis.

[GideonWells]

Well, there is no "Theory" yet. The "Theory of Everything", quotes used as it isn't a real theory yet just one that is expected to exist is nothing more than a myriad of hypothesises for now.

The LHC is going to test some such as with the Higgs-Boson particle that .

The H.B.P. is a particle proclaimed should exist in several of these hypothesises according to the mathematical equations.

If found, these take one step closer to becoming a theory. If never found, they remain guesses.

[jakedevon]

"If found, these take one step closer to becoming a theory. If never found, they remain guesses."

So, you're saying that there is no evidence for your belief. No surprise since what you say ("The universe always was.") can not be true.

Of course, facts don't normally change people's religious beliefs.

[GideonWells]

To use an analogy there is evidence. Just not the whole puzzle yet.

The puzzle is gray scale a feline body, but it could be a panther, a domestic cat, a saber tooth tiger, or even concievably have a horse's head.

Until the LHC was built we lacked the possibility to even test the sets of hypothesis that seem most likely (cat head).

Once the LHC is up and running it will either prove this hypothsis right or it'll strongly imply it is wrong.

If wrong, then onto finding a new hypothesis

[jakedevon]

"To use an analogy there is evidence. Just not the whole puzzle yet."

The science of mathematics prove that the universe is not infinitely old.

I have no idea how you think that the LHC will prove that we can't trust math.

[GideonWells]

At this point I think I might have failed to explain something.

The universe as we know it, including time, was created when the super symmetry broke up. What is known as the big bang.

However, this "creation" is similiar a change in state. Like a cake breaking up intos ingrediants, water to ice, or matter into energy. The stuff was always there in our perception as one of those compotents was time.

I'll admit I could be wrong. We will find out when we can study the super sym. state

[jakedevon]

"The universe as we know it, including time, was created..."

What?

What experiment proved that?

"I'll admit I could be wrong."

Well, people can have whatever religion that they want. But when they start telling others that their religion is not a religion, but science, then there is a problem.

You can believe this by blind faith if you want. But skeptics, like myself, will want evidence. Until then, we will believe in science.

[SofaKingLoaded]

Gideon, actual information or details on initial conditions or symmetry breaking is unwelcome in this forum..

Universal expansion is accelerating.. therefor Daniel killed the Lion..

The End.

Repent.

[jakedevon]

"The universe always was."

Known science proves otherwise.

The universe can't be infinitely old, because infinity is not a real number.

[mirrorfreespeech]

I don't think always can equal infinity here, because time as we know it has a start.

[jakedevon]

"I don't think always can equal infinity here,"

So, you are saying that the universe is not infinitely old then.

I agree. Scientifically, there cannot be an infinite amount of time behind us.

[mirrorfreespeech]

Seeing as time has a starting point; t=0

There can't be an infinite amount of time behind us, then again, is this such a disputed issue? I thought that 13,5-14 billion year age of the universe was pretty much accepted by now.

[jakedevon]

"There can't be an infinite amount of time behind us, is this such a disputed issue?

You'd be surprised.

People don't want there to be a beginning. If the universe is winding down, then that means that something wound it up.

But science can interfere with the religious views of some evolutionists. They don't like where the evidence points to.

Nothing in the universe can achieve motion or change direction without being acted upon by an outside force. And everything is in motion.

[mirrorfreespeech]

Well apparently there's a beginning of time and I haven't really seen a lot of scientists disagree about that. What happened between t=0 and t=10e-43 seconds is something that we're not sure about though. I don't know what outside force you're suggesting to or part of which theory that is.

[jakedevon]

"I don't know what outside force you're suggesting..."

I am glad that we agree that something set everything in motion. That is a good starting place.

I like to say it this way:

Nothing can achieve motion or change direction without being acted upon by an outside force. So, somebody gave us the gas for this lawnmower.

Also, matter can't create itself. A Matter Maker made the matter.

It really is that simple.

[mirrorfreespeech]

That's quite a stretch. "Something" can't set "Everything" in motion because by default this "Something" is part of "Everything". A matter maker is no solution because it introduces the problem of infinite regression. So sorry, it's not really THAT simple.

"Nothing can achieve motion or change direction without being acted upon by an outside force."

I'm not so sure about the validity of this claim, though I can't really give you a quick answer on this.

[jakedevon]

""Something" can't set "Everything in motion because by default this "Something" is part of "Everything"."

Not if this something is not part of everything. "Something" is a very general word. Could mean anything in particular.

"Everything" means everything.

You are trying a very common tactic. You don't control definitions.

Again you suggest that matter causes itself to be put into motion. That goes against the laws of physics.

[jakedevon]

I said: "Nothing can achieve motion or change direction without being acted upon by an outside force."

You replied: "I'm not so sure about the validity of this claim,"

I have no doubt that you are unsure about the scientific laws.

Real science points to the Creator and this interferes with the religious beliefs of some. So, they try to deny real science and even try to deny scientific laws.