0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
The universe has to make logical sense in terms of human reasoning
In order to have a ďbig bangĒ, we compact the entire universe down to a state of energy thatís void of all physics. Somehow this imaginary state of energy spontaneously burst into a universe, outside the laws of physics as we understand it.
So, to answer the first question, ďhow do you get something from nothing?Ē You donít. 0=0. 0≠1.
The Big Bang has that switch in the on and off position simultaneously, which then spontaneously creates a third finite position. It doesnít make sense. It is an invalid theory. The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning. The Big Bang is wrong, and thereís no way to correct it.
No it doesn't. The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us anymore than it is under obligation to make sense to a gorilla or a gnat. We just happen to be the smartest of the three.
No, such a condition is not necessary for a Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing.
What's nonsensical human reasoning is your attempt to equate a physical object like the Universe to a single number or an on/off switch.
Sure it does. It's following the laws of physics and math. They seem to be pretty logical to me.
Just because it's not fully understood now, certainly doesn't mean it can or won't be understood.
But it is theorized to be a highly condensed energy, sans physics.
Its value is 1. Its density is 1. Its size is 1.
I said it was sitting in nothing.
Why? The universe seems pretty bound to math.
You're entitled to your opinion, which I happen to see as a bit closed minded.
In what units?
Being closed-minded is dismissing a claim without examining the evidence first.
Bound to math, yes. And by consequence of that, there exist many different objects with different, measurable properties in the Universe. Momentum, energy, charge, mass and many other measurable quantities exist. It doesn't make sense to try to use a single number (and a number without units, at that), to describe all of these different things simultaneously.
It's >0 and <1. Between those two values lies an infinite number of variables, so the universe is infinite. That's how big it is.
You can certainly disagree with my answer, but you most certainly can't claim it's wrong. Mathematically speaking, it is correct.
It's the only thing in the entire universe, so it can only be compared to itself.
Because this condensed energy is the entire universe, its value would be 1 for all measurements.
But it also doesn't contain mass, because there's no space-time or motion.
Clearly it's not.
My unit of measure is simple. 1 universe.
It doesn't make sense to say that something sits "in nothing". Nothingness, by definition, isn't there and therefore cannot have anything sitting "inside" of it (which also doesn't make sense, as the word "in" only makes sense when space is present).
Then that value won't change whether the Universe is finite or infinite (because the Universe is obviously equal to itself), so that doesn't get us any closer to solving the question of whether the Universe is finite or infinite.
I guess where I take issue most is the Big Bang. The Big Bang is nonsensical human reasoning. The Big Bang is wrong, and thereís no way to correct it.
Itís a matter of grasping the concept of nothing, and infinity, and absolute. How do you get something from nothing? Nothing, is exactly what it implies, nothing, or numerically 0.
My sole prediction is that Dark Energy will never be detected or discovered directly.
Dark matter is probably a myth, and all attempts to detect it will more than likely fail.
So what lies beyond the universe?
What is the universe expanding into?
What is the universe accelerating towards?
What came before the big bang?
What would you define it as now? 17? 27? 10^300?
I favour Conrad Ranzan's Dynamic Steady State Universe. He posits an infinite universe of cosmic cells where aether is created near center of cell & annihilated in mass (mainly in blackholes & mainly near edge of cell). He has written books for sale, & has many articles for free. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G4GravityCell.htm
Quote from: andreasva on 27/12/2018 00:59:25So what lies beyond the universe?Nobody knows.Quote from: andreasva on 27/12/2018 00:59:25What is the universe expanding into?This question assumes that there is something for the Universe to expand into in the first place. The current scientific consensus is that space is simply expanding. That's it.Quote from: andreasva on 27/12/2018 00:59:25What is the universe accelerating towards?This question assumes that there is something that the Universe is accelerating towards, which is not a part of the current scientific consensus.Quote from: andreasva on 27/12/2018 00:59:25What came before the big bang?Nobody knows.QuoteWhat would you define it as now? 17? 27? 10^300?I wouldn't definite it as anything because it's a nonsensical question.You also need to learn how to use the edit function.
Exactly. No one has a clue what's really going on.
It makes no logical sense that space creates itself. Sorry, I will never agree with that reasoning.
The overall consensus, and I quote theory, "nothing" lies beyond the universe, and "nothing" has to come before the big bang.
You also need to learn how to use the edit function.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 27/12/2018 01:04:12I favour Conrad Ranzan's Dynamic Steady State Universe. He posits an infinite universe of cosmic cells where aether is created near center of cell & annihilated in mass (mainly in blackholes & mainly near edge of cell). He has written books for sale, & has many articles for free. http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G4GravityCell.htmMy view is much more elaborate than this, but simple really. I don't really want to go too deeply into it right now, because I'm just trying to get to step one. The universe is infinite, with no beginning or end. I glanced through some of it, but I don't think my view aligns with it frankly. I see a little string theory, a little holographic theory, a little steady state, a whole lot of bohemian and pilot wave, definitely a lot of relativity and quantum mechanics. I like the idea of an infinite wave with a frequency of 1 to describe the universe honestly. Infinite height, infinite length, frequency 1. A wave is sweeping out leaving matter in its path. You have the heat, creation, etc, but it's ongoing. We drift in 3-dimensionally away from the chaos and cool and condense on the downside of the wave, but I see too many possibilities there at the moment. Total speculation of course. So no, I don't want to get into it.
If your argument is "no one knows the answers to these questions, therefore the Big Bang theory is wrong", then that's a non-sequitur.
Good, because that's not what consensus says either.
Which theory are you quoting? The Big Bang theory does not require nothing to have come before the Big Bang