Problems with the Big Bang theory

[perkeyone]

After reading about one and a half pages of this thread, I have come to the conclusion that about half of the posts have been made simply to give the illusion that the poster is intelligent. (They failed horribly in my eyes.)

On the topic...

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

I have struggled with theories for creation for one reason, because they all start with something. How can anything come from nothing, is nothing a meaningful word in creation theories? I find it totally illogical that nothing existed before creation. The best I can come up with for a pseudo nothing is two forces that cancel each other. Our existence must prove that absolute nothing is impossible?

I have my own personal belief. It is not exactly a "creation theory" but rather an "existence theory"and it has these key points:
There was no beginning of the uni(multi)verse. It has always existed.
The big bang occurred and spawned the/our universe.
The big bang's singularity came from a "super massive black hole" that had reached a "critical mass" of some sort. The black hole was the end result of a previous universe.
The end of our universe will be the same as the previous one... a super massive black hole... and then a new universe will be created.
There have been an infinite number of universes created and destroyed in this manner.

An argument that on may have against this concept is that in order for it to be true then there would be an infinite past. An infinite past means that and infinite number of years have occurred, which is theoretically impossible. However, it makes sense to me when I change the perspective from "an infinite number of years have occurred" to " an infinite number of years are occurring".

[devonin]

I have come to the conclusion that about half of the posts have been made simply to give the illusion that the poster is intelligent. (They failed horribly in my eyes.)

How sad for your eyes, but please refrain from throwing insults at the other users of this forum, thanks.

I have my own personal belief.

I'm curious to see what evidence you have to support this theory.

[Ichiro_Suzuki_desu]

Originally Posted by perkeyone

"an infinite number of years have occurred" to " an infinite number of years are occurring".

Changing the wording doesn't really solve this problem, though. It just opens up the idea that three things can be said:
-an infinite number of years have occured
-an infinite number of years are occuring
-an infinite number of years will occur
I'd say all three of these things have to be true in that situation.

[Eccles]

What about cyclic universe?
that is at the end of the universe it will "go back" in time and create itself.

sounds strange, but in that option is avoids the questions
"what happened before the beginning?" or "how can something come out of nothing?"
and
"How could it exist forever in the past?"

so before the beginning was the end, but there was a beginning.

[devonin]

Please feel free to prove the existance of time travel to support that theory.

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by perkeyone

After reading about one and a half pages of this thread, I have come to the conclusion that about half of the posts have been made simply to give the illusion that the poster is intelligent. (They failed horribly in my eyes.)

I find it quite funny that someone would say that only to say,

Originally Posted by perkeyone

An argument that on may have against this concept is that in order for it to be true then there would be an infinite past. An infinite past means that and infinite number of years have occurred, which is theoretically impossible. However, it makes sense to me when I change the perspective from "an infinite number of years have occurred" to " an infinite number of years are occurring".

immediately afterwards. There are more grammatical errors in that one paragraph than I dare to count.

Then you go on to state a bunch of theories that don’t even make sense at all. There is no scientific basis for any of it. It’s true that we don’t know what black holes are exactly, but we do know that not even light can exist within them. That means that they do not create anything. A universe cannot be a black hole, black holes only exist within a universe. It is theorized that they could connect universes, but that theory has little proof. It just doesn’t make sense to say that a black hole is a universe. Universes expand and contract, but they don’t become other things, as far as science can tell us anyway.

I have never claimed to know everything, but for someone as obviously inept as you to down everyone in a forum designated for higher-level thinkers... I love the irony of it all.

Originally Posted by Eccles

What about cyclic universe?
that is at the end of the universe it will "go back" in time and create itself.

sounds strange, but in that option is avoids the questions
"what happened before the beginning?" or "how can something come out of nothing?"
and
"How could it exist forever in the past?"

so before the beginning was the end, but there was a beginning.

On a more serious note; this is a great idea. Well I like it anyway, that by no means makes it true. If all the dimensions are viewed as strings, why couldn’t they loop back on each other?

I don’t have anything to prove it, but Einstein believed in time travel and I know he was much more intelligent than I. Actually I'd like to discuss time travel for a bit. I want it to be possible, then everything could make sense. My only real problem with it is that if we can go into the past then it should be equally possible to go into the future. If one could go into the future then that must mean that the future is predetermined. I have the ability to go out right now and save a life, or I could take a life, I could even sit here and do absolutely nothing for the rest of my life. I don’t see how it could be predetermined when I have so many options. Yet this would validate the Theory that there are a bunch of dimensions parallel to our own they just branch off. And if everything is already set in stone why couldn’t it just loop back on itself.

I know this is a little scrambled. I just thought it all up, I'll try to put everything together and make more sense later I’m pressed for time at the moment. I know I have no solid proof so far, but look at it like the Big Bang Theory. I can’t prove it, but can you disprove it?

[devonin]

Ronin: Responding to flamey posts with more flamey posts doesn't help much. Calling someone inept, criticizing their presence in this forum, these are not things we do around here.

[perkeyone]

Originally Posted by Ichiro_Suzuki_desu

Changing the wording doesn't really solve this problem, though. It just opens up the idea that three things can be said:
-an infinite number of years have occurred
-an infinite number of years are occurring
-an infinite number of years will occur
I'd say all three of these things have to be true in that situation.

My intention was not to correct an error, rather to show a possible alternative viewpoint, which may suede those who feel that an infinite past is impossible.

Originally Posted by devonin

How sad for your eyes, but please refrain from throwing insults at the other users of this forum, thanks.

You’re right. I should have said something nicer. My apologies.

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm curious to see what evidence you have to support this theory.

It’s not really a theory. That was a slip of the tongue (finger). What I should have said is that it is a connection I made based off of the theories of other people.

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

I find it quite funny that someone would say that only to say, immediately afterwards. There are more grammatical errors in that one paragraph than I dare to count. Then you go on to state a bunch of theories that don’t even make sense at all. There is no scientific basis for any of it. It’s true that we don’t know what black holes are exactly, but we do know that not even light can exist within them. That means that they do not create anything. A universe cannot be a black hole, black holes only exist within a universe. It is theorized that they could connect universes, but that theory has little proof. It just doesn’t make sense to say that a black hole is a universe. Universes expand and contract, but they don’t become other things, as far as science can tell us anyway.

I have never claimed to know everything, but for someone as obviously inept as you to down everyone in a forum designated for higher-level thinkers... I love the irony of it all.

An argument that on*E* may have against this concept is that in order for it to be true then there would be an infinite past. An infinite past means that an(D) infinite number of years have occurred, which is theoretically impossible. However, it makes sense to me when I change the perspective from "an infinite number of years have occurred" to “an infinite number of years are occurring"

Correct me if I’m wrong (I know you will at least try.), but it looks like I forgot an “e” and accidentally added a “d”. Dare you to count to two?

Let me give you a link to one of the main influences on my belief since it apparently has no basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
Another influence on my belief is the fiction book "Bearing an hour glass" by Peirs Anthony.

[devonin]

Is the issue of an infinte past necessarily grounds for objecting to the theory?

You don't actually have any infinity going on here. You can have each iteration of the universe end in a "super massive black hole" and each iteration of the universe start in a "super massive black hole" and you can even claim that they are the same black hole, without -having- to require that such has been going on back into infinity.

I mean, you can, and seem to be doing so, but you could easily enough propose a very first universe along more traditionally accepted scientific lines. However, I rather strongly suspect that the concept of the eventual heat death of the universe (hooray entropy!) seems to me to be far more likely. The laws of thermodynamics seem pretty strong to me.

As an aside: Bearing an hourglass contains the idea that Chronos moves backwards in time, from the moment he takes up his office until the objective moment of his own birth/conception. Since there cannot be an officeholder for the incarnation of Time until such time as there are people to hold such an office, he actually needs only have persisted as far back as the first humans.

While theoretically the existance of office holders of Chronos living backwards tends to argue for the infinite -future- progression of the universe, basing your beliefs on time and the nature of the universe on Anthony's work seems to run counter to how you actually defined your belief above.

I'm really curious to hear about the influence of Anthony on this belief of yours.

[perkeyone]

Originally Posted by devonin

Is the issue of an infinte past necessarily grounds for objecting to the theory?

You don't actually have any infinity going on here. You can have each iteration of the universe end in a "super massive black hole" and each iteration of the universe start in a "super massive black hole" and you can even claim that they are the same black hole, without -having- to require that such has been going on back into infinity.

I mean, you can, and seem to be doing so, but you could easily enough propose a very first universe along more traditionally accepted scientific lines. However, I rather strongly suspect that the concept of the eventual heat death of the universe (hooray entropy!) seems to me to be far more likely. The laws of thermodynamics seem pretty strong to me.

As an aside: Bearing an hourglass contains the idea that Chronos moves backwards in time, from the moment he takes up his office until the objective moment of his own birth/conception. Since there cannot be an officeholder for the incarnation of Time until such time as there are people to hold such an office, he actually needs only have persisted as far back as the first humans.

While theoretically the existance of office holders of Chronos living backwards tends to argue for the infinite -future- progression of the universe, basing your beliefs on time and the nature of the universe on Anthony's work seems to run counter to how you actually defined your belief above.

I'm really curious to hear about the influence of Anthony on this belief of yours.

I wanted to make that comment about an infinite past because I once saw a thread here in CT supposedly disproving the existence of an infinite past. The starter stated that an infinite past is impossible since an infinite number of year would have to have already occurred... and that can't have happened. (Im sure an english proffessor just died from that) So since I didn't agree with the proof and to get an early start on any one who might make a comment similar to that thread, I stated the concept that worked for me. If you've studied calculus then its kinda like c is time and the present frame is the limit as c approaches infinity. This thought of the present frame approaching the future gives the present frame sort of a "forward motion" for lack of a better term. As I said before this is a concept that worked for me; it is likely useless garbage to anyone else.

I don't think that any dimension, including time, has a beginning or end, spanning infinitely in each direction. I think that for every "moment of time" there will be another moment before it and after it and for every "section of space" (for lack of a better term) there will be a section beyond it. So even before the big bang may have occurred there were still moments of time and sections of space. Perhaps even other "universes" exist in the sections of space beyond our universe (Which wouldn't really make then UNIverses but rather MULITverses) that are undergoing the same sort of "heart beat" that is a series of big bangs and "super massive black hole consolidations."

Im really glad to see that you have read the book. If i could find my copy i'd tell you the page number but i seem to have lost it. There is a passage in which chronos uses his power to travel to the end of time. Afterward he travels to the beginning of time. (Then he discovers the illusion about the color of the sand.) But when he went to the end of time(he thought it was the beginning) he saw many swirling black holes swallowing up all the matter and energy in the universe and eventually consolidating into one super massive black hole. I don't recall if that is exactly what the book had in it but that passage along with some more scientific theories gave rise to my connected ideas.

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by perkeyone

Correct me if I’m wrong (I know you will at least try.), but it looks like I forgot an “e” and accidentally added a “d”. Dare you to count to two?

You also had several other mistakes such as misplaced commas as well as spaces that simply shouldn’t have been there, but you apologized and so I will to. To be fair you had maybe 3 grammar errors at most and a few typing errors that anyone could make. No hard feelings, I just don’t think you had the right to show up out of nowhere and start making fun of people. If you’re going to be here for awhile try typing things up on a word processor, or maybe it was just a one time deal. I get rushed sometimes too and don’t make much sense, it happens. You do appear intelligent so good luck with posting; I like people who oppose my views anyway. It gives me something to work against so I can be more precise.

Originally Posted by perkeyone

I wanted to make that comment about an infinite past because I once saw a thread here in CT supposedly disproving the existence of an infinite past. The starter stated that an infinite past is impossible since an infinite number of year would have to have already occurred... and that can't have happened. (Im sure an english proffessor just died from that) So since I didn't agree with the proof and to get an early start on any one who might make a comment similar to that thread, I stated the concept that worked for me. If you've studied calculus then its kinda like c is time and the present frame is the limit as c approaches infinity. This thought of the present frame approaching the future gives the present frame sort of a "forward motion" for lack of a better term. As I said before this is a concept that worked for me; it is likely useless garbage to anyone else.

So you’re basically saying that we are on a set path? That god or something created a set timeline and we are simply following along it? I may be misinterpreting what you’re trying to say, but if it is a limit then it must be on a set line which I assume is time. Then you go on to say the present frame has a forward motion. So you’re saying that this is the one time. There is no forward or backwards in time only the present, but this present is still moving along a track of sorts, predefined by the "function" on the set "graph" of life. If that’s what you mean then I simply can’t agree. If everything is predetermined, then there must be infinite periods of time in which one could move forward or back.

Originally Posted by perkeyone

I don't think that any dimension, including time, has a beginning or end, spanning infinitely in each direction. I think that for every "moment of time" there will be another moment before it and after it and for every "section of space" (for lack of a better term) there will be a section beyond it.

There is not another section of space for ever section. It has been proven (as well as we can prove it) that there is a definite end to the universe and it is constantly expanding and contracting. Actually I'm pretty sure I've been through this earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by perkeyone

So even before the big bang may have occurred there were still moments of time and sections of space. Perhaps even other "universes" exist in the sections of space beyond our universe (Which wouldn't really make then UNIverses but rather MULITverses) that are undergoing the same sort of "heart beat" that is a series of big bangs and "super massive black hole consolidations."

I have always understood black holes to be nothing more than dead stars. They compress all matter and light to a point where it might not even exist anymore. Theories of black holes connecting the multiverse are common. I particularly like the one which states that black holes absorb time itself; allowing one to travel through time or dimensions. Of course we all know it’s much more likely that everything is just compressed and anyone or anything who tries to pass through it would die a very gruesome death. I admit my knowledge might me limited, but all the information I do have comes from scientific journals. Things of this nature have always fascinated me. If you could find an article or something that I could read over in regards to the whole black hole thing, I'd appreciate it.

Originally Posted by perkeyone

Im really glad to see that you have read the book. If i could find my copy i'd tell you the page number but i seem to have lost it. There is a passage in which chronos uses his power to travel to the end of time. Afterward he travels to the beginning of time. (Then he discovers the illusion about the color of the sand.) But when he went to the end of time(he thought it was the beginning) he saw many swirling black holes swallowing up all the matter and energy in the universe and eventually consolidating into one super massive black hole. I don't recall if that is exactly what the book had in it but that passage along with some more scientific theories gave rise to my connected ideas.

That’s what I want to see; the scientific stuff. Chronos is cool, but the whole myth thing doesn’t really work for me. Greek mythology is very interesting but I have trouble accepting a lot of science, there’s no way I'll trust what some old lonely guy wrote about 100 years ago in a book of fiction. Although they do spark the imagination.

[devonin]

That’s what I want to see; the scientific stuff. Chronos is cool, but the whole myth thing doesn’t really work for me. Greek mythology is very interesting but I have trouble accepting a lot of science, there’s no way I'll trust what some old lonely guy wrote about 100 years ago in a book of fiction. Although they do spark the imagination.

Uh...just for clarification, the book perkyone referenced is called "Bearing an Hourglass" and was written by Piers Anthony in 1985. You ought to look up where things are from before you comment on them., just for the sake of accuracy in your objections.

Also, Greek Mythology was written 100 years ago?

[perkeyone]

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

You also had several other mistakes such as misplaced commas as well as spaces that simply shouldn’t have been there, but you apologized and so I will to. To be fair you had maybe 3 grammar errors at most and a few typing errors that anyone could make. No hard feelings, I just don’t think you had the right to show up out of nowhere and start making fun of people. If you’re going to be here for awhile try typing things up on a word processor, or maybe it was just a one time deal. I get rushed sometimes too and don’t make much sense, it happens. You do appear intelligent so good luck with posting; I like people who oppose my views anyway. It gives me something to work against so I can be more precise.

No hard feelings here either.
I know exactly what you are talking about and the word processor thing is almost a necessity. I don’t know how many times I’ve typed up a huge well thought out paragraph only to have it vanish forever when I mess up a copy paste or press back and go to a new page.
Oh and I love an intelligent debate too.

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

So you’re basically saying that we are on a set path? That god or something created a set timeline and we are simply following along it? I may be misinterpreting what you’re trying to say, but if it is a limit then it must be on a set line which I assume is time. Then you go on to say the present frame has a forward motion. So you’re saying that this is the one time. There is no forward or backwards in time only the present, but this present is still moving along a track of sorts, predefined by the "function" on the set "graph" of life. If that’s what you mean then I simply can’t agree. If everything is predetermined, then there must be infinite periods of time in which one could move forward or back. .

I didn’t really mean it to be interpreted that closely to the definition of a limit.
It was mostly just an analogy to describe the forward “motion” (for lack of a better term) of time.

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

There is not another section of space for ever section. It has been proven (as well as we can prove it) that there is a definite end to the universe and it is constantly expanding and contracting. Actually I'm pretty sure I've been through this earlier in the thread. .

I don’t see why not...
And how can they prove the nonexistence of things beyond the universe?
If a person could reach the end of the universe what would stop them from going past it?

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

I have always understood black holes to be nothing more than dead stars. They compress all matter and light to a point where it might not even exist anymore. Theories of black holes connecting the multiverse are common. I particularly like the one which states that black holes absorb time itself; allowing one to travel through time or dimensions. Of course we all know it’s much more likely that everything is just compressed and anyone or anything who tries to pass through it would die a very gruesome death. I admit my knowledge might me limited, but all the information I do have comes from scientific journals. Things of this nature have always fascinated me. If you could find an article or something that I could read over in regards to the whole black hole thing, I'd appreciate it.

Yeah black holes are pretty interesting.
Ill have to get back to you though I'm a bit preoccupied and i would like to be more focused during such a conversation.

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by devonin

Uh...just for clarification, the book perkyone referenced is called "Bearing an Hourglass" and was written by Piers Anthony in 1985. You ought to look up where things are from before you comment on them., just for the sake of accuracy in your objections.

Also, Greek Mythology was written 100 years ago?

lol Ok yeah that’s what I get for assuming. The way he explained it sounded like something strait out of Greek mythology though. So my bad. And the most recent Greek work I have read was The Orestia by Aeschylus. He wrote it in 480 BC when he was forty five. So in my opinion he was still an old man. I know that’s a little more than 100 years ago, but I wasn’t too far off (joking).

Originally Posted by perkeyone

I didn’t really mean it to be interpreted that closely to the definition of a limit.
It was mostly just an analogy to describe the forward “motion” (for lack of a better term) of time.

Aw. I kinda liked the idea I thought you were trying to get across. The whole there is only one space in time thing. It was original. Of course I disagreed so you'd have to explain better, but I wanted it to work out. I guess your pushing for infinite space, so I should have known you would be for infinite time as well.

Originally Posted by perkeyone

I don’t see why not...
And how can they prove the nonexistence of things beyond the universe?
If a person could reach the end of the universe what would stop them from going past it?

Well I thought a lot about this question and I looked it up, but I just didn’t find much. So I brought up the question at my last honors seminar. I had a chemistry professor and a philosophy professor, plus all the other students there thinking about and this is what we came up with.

Question:
Why is the concept of a defined universe i.e. 15 or so billion light
years in size held to be the limit of the universe? I grapple with the
idea of it all starting with a "Big Bang" and in my limited ability
to grasp such concepts am comfortable with the explanations I've
gleaned so far from persons such as LeMaitre; Einstein; Hubble;
Hawkins and others, is it possible that something may exist 20, 30
50 or 100 billion light years distant, other "Big Bangs"?

Answer:
Yes, and yes. We talk about what we know, can see, or can infer. We
could talk about what's outside the inferable universe, but it would
be a short conversation, because we don't have any information on which
to base a conjecture or against which to test it.

We have through history, always have had to make room for new conclusions i.e.
Earth Centered, Sun centered universes is it possible that it goes on
for ever in every direction and just because the light has not reached us and
possibly never will that it does not exist? I have difficulty understanding
the concept that nothing exists beyond those defined limits. "Nothing"
is the absence of "Everything" including space, it seems to fly in the
face of infinity.


The limit of knowledge is a very frustrating thing for humans, particularly when it sits there and thumbs its nose at you, as it does in this case. But if our ancestors weren't similarly frustrated by the limits of their understanding, we'd probably still be living in caves. Imagine what it must have been like really to believe that you personally could fall off the edge of the world if you simply took a long enough boat trip, and to have no clue into what you might fall.

This same example would work for the end of the universe. Most scientists believe there is a definite end to it, but how will we know unless we try. Right now their trying to send particles to the end of the universe and then pick them up when they bounce back to us, this in theory would prove the end of the universe. Even then it might only be that the particles hit some distant planet we can’t see. So there’s really no way we will ever know. Well not until we invent some craft that can go faster than the speed of light. Way faster than the speed of light. Or if we could travel through time, and that’s assuming time could even be stopped. It’s just not very likely, but no one believed human flight was possible either.

So yeah good point perkey. You may be on to something there. But how can there be a multiverse if we live in an infinite universe? I don’t see how you can believe in both.

[devonin]

But how can there be a multiverse if we live in an infinite universe?

If the universe is infinitly large, that can easily enough mean that it simply extends spatially for an infinite distance. This actually seems necessary to me. Even if we imagine some universal barrier at the extreme edges, there is something on the other side of that barrier. Even if it is "nothing" that is still "something" and that "nothing" can extend as far as it needs to.

A multiverse can be one of two things really: A spatially located number of universes beside each other, such that physical travel at a sufficient speed could somehow travel between them (But I'd be tempted to define that more as just one megaverse containing multiple universes. in the same way that we have one universe containing multiple galaxies) The other way would imply multiple universes existing in parallel, spread out over non-spatial dimensions, or at least, non-three-dimensionally.

This is where you get the idea of 'alternate' parallel universes, and its a really big concept in quantum theory, the idea that new universes are spun off of each other in order to reconcile quantum mechanics.

[EnR]

dont know if anyone said anything about this, but there are billions of universes filled with planets, and the "big bang" wasint an explosion, but an expansion.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by EnR

dont know if anyone said anything about this, but there are billions of universes filled with planets, and the "big bang" wasint an explosion, but an expansion.

Feel free to make with the evidence to support this. Blanket authoritative statements, especially ones that conflict with the entire course of the current discussion need a little more to back them up than "nothing"

[Sullyman2007]

It seems like this whole thread is riding on the edge of rule number 5. Nothing here can really be proven to be, "factual", if you will.

Originally Posted by EnR

dont know if anyone said anything about this, but there are billions of universes filled with planets, and the "big bang" wasint an explosion, but an expansion.

I personally never really agreed with the whole "parallel universe" theory, allways found it to be quite hard to contemplate. Not only that, but it just leads back to the same question on The Big Bang. Yeah, so what if there are a billion other universes. We might be first, we might be somewhere in the middle, but whichever one came first, how did it come to be? In any case, I do support the Big Bang theory, I just dont have alot of evidence to back it. No one does.

[perkeyone]

think about a molecule its made up of atoms which are in turn made up of particles like neutrons. neutrons are made of quarks which are made of even smaller particles. the hierarchy could possibly continue to infinitely smaller particles. my concept for the universe is just the opposite. the universe is just a small particle of a larger item a multiverse you could call it. of course the multiverse would be a component of an even larger item. none of it is tangible or observable, and therefor not very scientific and probably against the rules of the thread.

alternate time lines are a neat concept but when ever i think of time"lines" it makes me think of only 2 dimensions when it could hypothetically be any number of dimensions.

[devonin]

Parallel universes doesn't try to be an answer to the question of what created the universe. You're denying that oranges can be apples.

Theories about the creation of the universe aren't the same thing as theories about the makeup of the universe.

And yes, we've been riding the edge of rule 5 for a while now, but it's more about a lack of evidence, rather than the inability for there to be evidence, which is where rule 5 tends to come down on people.