Before The Big Bang!

[213374U]

I may be misinterpreting your concept of space, then. Infinite and with bendable properties like length, bredth and height AND vacuumous? It is not clear whether gravity is expressable in gravitron particles, for example, yet I would hold that space has no such particles. The space you refer to is jsut where those particles are present, on an energetic trajectory out from the Big Bang. (that's what I'd call the fabric of space and time.) So, technically you could term space inside a bigger infitinte vacuum, but this seems the most logical explanation to the observable pattern of star systems, so far.

True enough, but that still doesn't account for the relation between space and time. Considering them two sides of a same coin, if you will, works better. My concept of space is not a vacuum with particles floating in it. I tend to consider it more like a "fluid" together with time. Perhaps the discovery of such "gravitons" will lead to the prediction and discovery of "chronatons", but that is science fiction right now.

 

 

Sure is, I agree with that. I don't see how the universe of stars can be infinite, though, even if the Big Bang were many times further back in time than we presently believe. It would have to be infinitely far back.

The universe of stars isn't infinite. It has a finite, calculated mass. However, if you can conceive the infinity of time, can't you conceive the infinity of space, too?

 

I think that the farthest we have managed to look is the infrared background noise, which is assumed is the remnant radiation of the initial Big Bang. That would indicate where the boundary of space is, assuming that space began its expansion at the beginning of time, and assuming space expands at the speed of light. Lots of assumptions there. I think I read something about the expansion of space, but unfortunately that's beyond my knowledge. But anyway, I think that the Universe being infinite has more to do with the curvature of space than the euclidean concept of an infinite space.

[metadigital]

Like a M

[alanschu]

I've always been fascinated that many people find "The Universe just exists" as being completely unacceptable...but "God just exists" is perfectly ok.

 

 

My main reason for "removing" God from the equation is based purely on reading up about all the messed up explanations people had for stuff that they didn't understand. Unfortuately, it's human nature to need reasons for something. We can't just be on this planet to procreate and pass on our genes...there must be something else, otherwise what's the point? Right?

 

I feel God was created simply as a means to explain the unknown. Oblivion is impossible to conceive. For the universe to just exist seems "silly" so we create abstract notions to satisfy our desires. Ah yes, an all knowing God created us.....what's that? Who created God? Blasphemy! He's always existed!

 

 

It was funny to know that initially the Big Bang theory was criticized because it reeked too much of divine intervention.

[Cantousent]

It was funny to know that initially the Big Bang theory was criticized because it reeked too much of divine intervention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What's most interesting is that, of the most active participants in this thread, none has argued against the theory of the big bang at all. What is apparent to me, however, is that some folks want to turn a discussion of the origins of the universe into an all out attack on religion. That really doesn't serve anyone's purpose.

 

...And, yes, almost everyone seeks greater meaning, even if they do not have religion... even if they don't believe in God. You might find it silly, but, in your own words, "it just is."

 

Even if we take God out of the question, something I have always been wiling to do for the sake of discussion, then we still seek the answer to our origins. That won't change. Science itself will never be happy with the idea that "it just is." Every minute of every day, there is someone, in the name of science, searching for the origins of the universe. Searching, I submit, for the origins of matter and energy. Science itself balks at the idea of throwing up our hands and saying, "it just is." Science would much rather ask, "why is it?"

 

Some of the participants in this thread, of whom I count you, would have us believe that science tells us to be satisfied and remain silent. That flies in the very face of the science you seem to worship.

 

So, yet again, some message board cowboy comes into the thread, jonesin' for a fight over God, when I contend that the discussion, even in terms of science, is ill served by the proposition that we just accept everything the way it is. Everyone can pack it up and go home. No need to ask questions or look for higher truths.

 

I'm truly trying not to be offensive, but I am completely frustrated that some of you, in an effort to ridicule religion, are stifling science as well.

 

Can you not accept that science itself is looking for the answers to these very questions?

 

...And I'm a religious person. I believe in God. If I'm willing to cease the ridiculous bickering of religion and settle into a discussion of the origins of matter, why is it so hard for others?

[213374U]

I feel God was created simply as a means to explain the unknown.  Oblivion is impossible to conceive.  For the universe to just exist seems "silly" so we create abstract notions to satisfy our desires.  Ah yes, an all knowing God created us.....what's that?  Who created God?  Blasphemy!  He's always existed!

It's always nice to see that despite one's best efforts to illustrate a standpoint, somebody always manages to dumb it down.

 

It's illogical to think that the Universe "just is" and it has been like that forever. Causality is a constant in our reality, and thus, it makes sense to think that there must be a cause for the Universe as well. However, if we conceive a "God" (or a creating force, or whatever you want to call it) that is outside our reality, it no longer needs to be bound by the rules that usually apply, causality among them. Is it a leap of faith? An assumption? Indeed. BUT it is applied logic whithout ruling out the possibility of a system that doesn't obey logic.

 

You believe in the infallibility of logic. I, while having an unshakable faith in logic, do not believe that nothing can escape it.

[metadigital]

The main problem with religion (and I know this is a science thread, but my comment is pertinent that that as well) is that it is outside science. Not only is this convenient to help mop up the current unexplainables of science, but is also prevents further examination -- we already have a cause: God.

 

Now, I am quite happy to discuss the boundaries of science and further the science. The problem is -- and this is no accident -- only a very few people are qulaified to discuss such things. Because they are very complex, and rely on a lot of other complex knowledge, which is not readily available to the amateur cosmologist. It is very easy in this day and age to become a world expert on a tiny subject (heck I am a world expert on my thesis topic) -- but to gain enough broad spectrum scientific knowledge requires the total dedication of a lifetime's work -- unless you feel that today's physicists are not that bright.

 

Consequently there will be questions that are unanswerable -- especially to us and especially in such a forum -- but this is not an excuse to say they are insoluable.

 

I do enjoy the mental calisthenics involved in the contemplation of the beyond-knowledge, but this will inevitably incorporate some philosophical discource. And probably not a small amount of theological cerebration, as well.

 

And I may be just a tad over-sensitive about the theological encroachment into rigorous science (but I make no excuses for that! )

[Cantousent]

"Now, I am quite happy to discuss the boundaries of science and further the science. The problem is -- and this is no accident -- only a very few people are qulaified to discuss such things. Because they are very complex, and rely on a lot of other complex knowledge, which is not readily available to the amateur cosmologist. It is very easy in this day and age to become a world expert on a tiny subject (heck I am a world expert on my thesis topic) -- but to gain enough broad spectrum scientific knowledge requires the total dedication of a lifetime's work -- unless you feel that today's physicists are not that bright."

 

That's a reasonable approach and, under those terms, I can accept what you've said. Still, while I have nothing but respect for physicists of our day and age (and I know some of these physicists of our day and age) there is no concensus even amongst their number. While I can't make any real contributions to the question at hand, I can observe the ever changing landscape of the topic.

 

Science describes our reality, and I, for one, am happy to let it do so. It provides for us a way to discuss our environment. Philosophy is another language, and Theology is merely an extension of that language into a more refined discourse on the nature of divinity. So use all three, science, philosophy, and theology, but none of them should be a weapon to attack someone else. ...Or at least none should be used as a weapon to attack anyone in this particular thread. As far off-base as some of the posts seem to be, there seems nothing truly dangerous in anyone's position in this thread. Wrong, maybe, but not dangerous.

 

Ultimately, the real question might not be, "why does matter exist?" or even, "what does it mean to exist?" but, "why do we ponder these things in the first place?"

 

You speak forcefully and well, meta. Nevertheless, you can believe in your cause with all you heart; you can speak with great eloquence for your cause, but you might still be wrong. That's true for all of us.

[213374U]

That's true for all of us.

Not for me. I can't bear the thought of ever being wrong, and that's why I hold no beliefs, at all.

 

"

[metadigital]

... "why do we ponder these things in the first place?"

 

You speak forcefully and well, meta.  Nevertheless, you can believe in your cause with all you heart; you can speak with great eloquence for your cause, but you might still be wrong.  That's true for all of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intelligence is a cul-de-sac in the highway of existence; it is a dead end where too many precious resources are wasted to create the brain that ultimately ends up contemplating its navel instead of continuing the gene game.

 

The armoured anthropods had it right, first. Loads of dumb animals will overcome even the most puzzling of survival problems with sheer numerical force and a frequent reproductive cycle to react quickly to the environment.

 

I believe in Nothing. Everything is sacred.

I beleive in Everything. Nothing is sacred.

~

[Cantousent]

When you play Devil's advocate, my fellow gunslingers, you must always remember the disposition of your client.

[metadigital]

When you play Devil's advocate, my fellow gunslingers, you must always remember the disposition of your client. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell that to the crabs and roaches ... "

[Cantousent]

When you play Devil's advocate, my fellow gunslingers, you must always remember the disposition of your client. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell that to the crabs and roaches ... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Apparently, the crabs and ****roaches can take care of themselves.

[zeroFantasy]

Personally, I believe in the Big Bang...well, I almost believe in it. Seems too extreme to be the truth. I think maybe, just maybe, something else happened.

 

But certainly not god. I can be anybody during my lifetime, anythning but a religious person. I believe in what I see; therefore, I don't believe in fairy tales and I have doubts about the Big Bang..

[Kaftan Barlast]

As of tonight, I have decided to cease to accept the existance of more dimensions than the normal 3. Anything beyond that I will hereby consider as either purely mathematical/theoretical or as something else than dimensions.

[cewekeds]

we have really good ideas about what happen in the universe after 5 minutes of the big bang. Critical mass make sense to me I've seen it happen to my book bags. It usually explodes in the middle of walking somewhere when I'm late. :D

 

We learn these things from looking out into space which is looking back into time plus radiation. The great thing is somebody might come along and discover something that throws the whole system off. One problem some people are having is there enough mass in the universe to make the gravity needed to form stars. Everybody looking for proof of dark matter in space and some even claim this dark matter is everywhere in space.

 

I hope we never get the anwsers because what fun would that be?

 

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

 

 

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Douglas Adams

[213374U]

One problem some people are having is there enough mass in the universe to make the gravity needed to form stars. Everybody looking for proof of dark matter in space and some even claim this dark matter is everywhere in space.

[cewekeds]

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/co...darkmatter.html

 

 

Maybe not everybody but few people are looking at dark matter to explain.

[213374U]

Yes, I know about dark matter. I didn't understand the bit about gravity needed to form stars, though.

[cewekeds]

Before the idea of dark matter some scientist thought that mass in the universe was to small to cause the gravity pull strong enough to pull more matter in. But mixed with dark matter it might increased the mass making able to make stars. I don't remember all the details because its what one of my old professors was working on.

[213374U]

I thought dark matter had been predicted due to observed gravitational interactions needing more mass than we could see. I didn't know that dark matter was involved in starting up the nuclear fires in the cores of stars. But now that you mention it, I suppose it makes sense.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Whatever happened to springy space?

[metadigital]

Whatever happened to springy space?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[SteveThaiBinh]

Whatever happened to springy space?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard a documentary about this on the BBC World Service, maybe a year ago? I hope I remember some of this right: they'd discovered a completely new force (to go along with gravity, the strong force etc.) that they were calling 'springy space', and it meant that where there was empty space, this force was pushing matter on either side of it apart. This was causing an acceleration in the expansion of the universe that hadn't been expected, and meant there was no way the universe would slow its expansion, contract and have a 'big crunch'.

 

I hope I didn't imagine this! They seemed to be making a really big thing of it.

[Cantousent]

This is a test of the emergency broadcast system.

[metadigital]

This is a test of the emergency broadcast system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ROFL

 

Don't be alarmed.

 

You will hear a continuous klaxon whilst there is a heightened state of danger. Don't be alarmed.