PDA

View Full Version : The Universe always existed


DC
14th August 2009, 02:08 AM
My best Friend, an Atheist like me, has a strange theory.
That the universe always existed and did not start with the Big Bang.
the maximum he can imagen is a cycle that will leed to big bang like events.

But he doesnt belive in the theory that everything came into existance with the big bang.

His main point to refuse the Big Bang theory is actually because this theory comes from a Priester.

I do somehow belive everything must start existing at one point.

my mind cant work with the idea that the Universe just was there all the time, always. it doesnt make sense to me :)

i guess also not to you.

what do you think?

DC
14th August 2009, 02:09 AM
totaly wrong subforum , sorry

Oliver
14th August 2009, 02:41 AM
Well, what if there is an infinite number of Universes and all of them grow and shrink down to the point that a big bang occurs - or not.

DC
14th August 2009, 02:43 AM
Well, what if there is an infinite number of Universes and all of them grow and shrink down to the point that a big bang occurs - or not.

without mentioning an infinite number of universes, that was pretty much what he ment with the cycle leading to a Big Bang.

Undesired Walrus
14th August 2009, 02:52 AM
My best Friend, an Atheist like me, has a strange theory.
That the universe always existed and did not start with the Big Bang.
the maximum he can imagen is a cycle that will leed to big bang like events.

But he doesnt belive in the theory that everything came into existance with the big bang.

It's not a strange theory. No scientist says that the Big Bang is the event which began the Universe. It was simply a huge explosion that occured the furthest back science can see.

However, without evidence, your friend's theory holds as much weight as me proposing that a Hungarian plastic surgeon created the universe with a couple of acne explosions.


His main point to refuse the Big Bang theory is actually because this theory comes from a Priester.

He refuses to believe in it because Lemaitre aided in creating the model? He's not much of a rationalist is he? Does he reject Galileo's model of a sun-centered solar system because Galileo was a devout catholic?

DC
14th August 2009, 02:56 AM
It's not a strange theory. No scientist says that the Big Bang is the event which began the Universe. It was simply a huge explosion that occured the furthest back science can see.

However, without evidence, your friend's theory holds as much weight as me proposing that a Hungarian plastic surgeon created the universe with a couple of acne explosions.



He refuses to believe in it because Lemaitre aided in creating the model? He's not much of a rationalist is he? Does he reject Galileo's model of a sun-centered solar system because Galileo was a devout catholic?

well yes, a prominent german scientist did actually claim this in his TV show.
its the point where space time and matter started. and thats how we startet talking about it.

He is a very rational person normaly, but not when it come to religion, he is totaly anti theists :)

But ill ask him about Galileo, good point :) i did it alread with Darwin :D

lionking
14th August 2009, 02:58 AM
Have you asked this to be moved?

DC
14th August 2009, 02:59 AM
Have you asked this to be moved?

sure

Undesired Walrus
14th August 2009, 03:23 AM
well yes, a prominent german scientist did actually claim this in his TV show.
its the point where space time and matter started. and thats how we startet talking about it.


But that in no way means that is when 'a something' started. The German scientist made a mistake if he declared that the Big Bang was the start of it all. One has to be humble about these things. We just don't know, it doesn't matter what we believe is aesthetically pleasing like your mate. And that is what makes the Universe even more exciting. Unjustified judgements squander wonder.

The problem with the constantly recycling Universe theory is that this Universe seems to be destined to expand forever, without the ability to contract. But perhaps it is one of the defunct Universes in a sea of trillions, the majority of which contract and form new ones.

On the issue of trying to get your head around the notion that the Universe always existed, the formation of the Universe at the Big Bang doesn't really exclude that possibility. In a sense, believing that the Universe began at that time makes you a believer in the concept that it always existed, as there is no great lake of time before it or outside it. We all imagine this great black void 'before' the big bang. Infact (If the Universe came into being 13.7 Billion years ago), there was no black void, and no no black void. Thus, a Universe that appeared at the Big Bang has always existed, as there was no something before it, nor was there a nothing.

DC
14th August 2009, 03:34 AM
But that in no way means that is when 'a something' started. The German scientist made a mistake if he declared that the Big Bang was the start of it all. One has to be humble about these things. We just don't know, it doesn't matter what we believe is aesthetically pleasing like your mate. And that is what makes the Universe even more exciting. Unjustified judgements squander wonder.

The problem with the constantly recycling Universe theory

i only have it in German, but simplyfied, it is indeed what he claims.

http://www.br-online.de/br-alpha/alpha-centauri/alpha-centauri-big-bang-2001-ID1208425549316.xml

Undesired Walrus
14th August 2009, 03:38 AM
Well, it's not common belief within the Scientific community IIRC. As I said above, one has to be humble about these things.

'The term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.'

That's it basically.

DC
14th August 2009, 03:44 AM
Well, it's not common belief within the Scientific community IIRC. As I said above, one has to be humble about these things.

'The term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.'

That's it basically.

yes, thats also what he says, adn i do belive that so far. but he also claims, the big bang, is the point where Time started, laws of physic started and so on.

everything, every single particle that exists today was on one tiny point, the temperature was incredible high.

Singularitarian
14th August 2009, 03:58 AM
It's not a strange theory. No scientist says that the Big Bang is the event which began the Universe. It was simply a huge explosion that occured the furthest back science can see.

However, without evidence, your friend's theory holds as much weight as me proposing that a Hungarian plastic surgeon created the universe with a couple of acne explosions.



He refuses to believe in it because Lemaitre aided in creating the model? He's not much of a rationalist is he? Does he reject Galileo's model of a sun-centered solar system because Galileo was a devout catholic?

It wasn't big at all. Who told you this?

Actually the name big bang is misunderstood. A poorly coined name by the legendary Fred Hoyle, the big bang was not even a bang, nor was it big. It began expansion from sizes near or below the planck threshold.

Dancing David
14th August 2009, 04:05 AM
yes, thats also what he says, adn i do belive that so far. but he also claims, the big bang, is the point where Time started, laws of physic started and so on.

everything, every single particle that exists today was on one tiny point, the temperature was incredible high.


Well, it is hard to say what happenes at the point our theories break down, so to say it was all one point, without the GUT, is sort of silly.

Dancing David
14th August 2009, 04:06 AM
It wasn't big at all. Who told you this?

Actually the name big bang is misunderstood. A poorly coined name by the legendary Fred Hoyle, the big bang was not even a bang, nor was it big. It began expansion from sizes near or below the planck threshold.

Yes, it was meant as derision by Hoyle.

Singularitarian
14th August 2009, 04:07 AM
It only breaks down David if there is a singularity.

DC
14th August 2009, 04:08 AM
Well, it is hard to say what happenes at the point our theories break down, so to say it was all one point, without the GUT, is sort of silly.

it started with the repeated question to him, what was before the big bang, he says we cannot say anything about it, it is not possible to say anything about it, and then does on to say everything started then from that one point.

Singularitarian
14th August 2009, 04:20 AM
Theories like Ekpyrotic theory contends time has been here forever, but existed in a dormant frozen state, before some other universe smashed into out own, exciting the dormant energy.

DC
14th August 2009, 04:37 AM
i have alot lot problems with understadning time. (no not reading the clock :D)
but like the connection between mass and speed , it is not constant etc.

i cant compute it :(

Singularitarian
14th August 2009, 05:08 AM
i have alot lot problems with understadning time. (no not reading the clock :D)
but like the connection between mass and speed , it is not constant etc.

i cant compute it :(

If you like, you could read this, which gives an insight into how time is viewed today from quantum mechanics and relativity.

http://quantumphysics1.blogspot.com/

Cainkane1
14th August 2009, 05:11 AM
My best Friend, an Atheist like me, has a strange theory.
That the universe always existed and did not start with the Big Bang.
the maximum he can imagen is a cycle that will leed to big bang like events.

But he doesnt belive in the theory that everything came into existance with the big bang.

His main point to refuse the Big Bang theory is actually because this theory comes from a Priester.

I do somehow belive everything must start existing at one point.

my mind cant work with the idea that the Universe just was there all the time, always. it doesnt make sense to me :)

i guess also not to you.

what do you think?
It depends on what you would call a Universe. Was the void surrounding the pea sized Universe actually the pre big bang Universe?

Bikewer
14th August 2009, 06:18 AM
There's no lack of speculation among cosmologists about all these things; we have the cosmic "foam" of limitless universes of which ours is just one "bubble", we have notions of essentially infinite universes existing at the same time but in different dimensions, cyclical systems where cosmic "branes" collide periodically, causing "bang" events.....

None of these things are observable, of course, at least at this stage of technology.

Fun to speculate, of course. There does not seem to be any special reason why our universe should be the only one, as we can't fathom the infinity of "the void" nor the concept of eternity.
I can't think of any reason (given infinite space) that other universes, even infinite numbers of same, should not exist.

Mashuna
14th August 2009, 06:26 AM
[Off topic] Now you've changed your name to DC, whenever I see one of your threads in the R&P forum, I think DOC has started another 'proof' of the Bible thing. [/OT]

Monketey Ghost
14th August 2009, 06:51 AM
Interesting. Myself, I have a hard time not thinking of the universe as having a start time, because in our frame of reference we love to have starts and finishes and systems of edges that define things.

I had a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that there's no center or middle to the whole Thing, but that's how it is... BBT is surely fascinating.

I guess we argue from incredulity quite naturally, all of us...

DC
14th August 2009, 07:22 AM
If you like, you could read this, which gives an insight into how time is viewed today from quantum mechanics and relativity.

http://quantumphysics1.blogspot.com/

thanks , i will read that :)

DC
14th August 2009, 07:23 AM
[Off topic] Now you've changed your name to DC, whenever I see one of your threads in the R&P forum, I think DOC has started another 'proof' of the Bible thing. [/OT]

oh no :(

DC
14th August 2009, 07:24 AM
Interesting. Myself, I have a hard time not thinking of the universe as having a start time, because in our frame of reference we love to have starts and finishes and systems of edges that define things.

I had a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that there's no center or middle to the whole Thing, but that's how it is... BBT is surely fascinating.

I guess we argue from incredulity quite naturally, all of us...

another point i have heard and got teached, but cannot compute.


everything has a middlepoint or center.

Monketey Ghost
14th August 2009, 07:33 AM
another point i have heard and got teached, but cannot compute.


everything has a middlepoint or center.

Everything we're familiar with. If it has edges... I cannot make myself believe the universe has edges.

As Phil Plait says in his excellent book, if the universe had an edge, what would it look like? ...the beginnings of my dim understanding of this conceptual stone from which I try to squeeze blood...

aggle-rithm
14th August 2009, 07:39 AM
another point i have heard and got teached, but cannot compute.


everything has a middlepoint or center.

What is the middlepoint or center of the surface of a sphere?

Take your time....

Monketey Ghost
14th August 2009, 07:48 AM
*imagines himself on such a surface*

I know exactly where the center is. Why, it's ...um,

wait, I can show you, it's right... ...uhh...

DC
14th August 2009, 07:54 AM
Everything we're familiar with. If it has edges... I cannot make myself believe the universe has edges.

As Phil Plait says in his excellent book, if the universe had an edge, what would it look like? ...the beginnings of my dim understanding of this conceptual stone from which I try to squeeze blood...

well easy, the most distant galaxys.
oh dear, thats hard to describe.

if we knew all the galaxys we would know the outermost galaxys.
or the galaxys or particles that traveled the farst since the big bang.

DC
14th August 2009, 07:55 AM
What is the middlepoint or center of the surface of a sphere?

Take your time....

can i cut open your sphere? please :)

Monketey Ghost
14th August 2009, 07:58 AM
no cheating. You have to lick to find out how many licks it takes to get to the center of the Tootsie Pop. Lick harder, boy!

Dancing David
15th August 2009, 06:56 AM
well easy, the most distant galaxys.
oh dear, thats hard to describe.

if we knew all the galaxys we would know the outermost galaxys.
or the galaxys or particles that traveled the farst since the big bang.


Well, until you actually teleport there and they are at the center of the universe as well.

the edge is time, and it all gets confused shortly after the BBE.