The Big Bang Didn't Need God to Start Universe

Author: FLRW

Posts

Total: 81
Topic's author
#1
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

 Our universe could have popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago without any divine help whatsoever, researchers say.
That may run counter to our instincts, which recoil at the thought of something coming from nothing. But we shouldn't necessarily trust our instincts, for they were honed to help us survive on the African savannah 150,000 years ago, not understand the inner workings of the Universe



#2
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
It would help if you actually stated their argument, instead of simply stating that they made an argument 
#3
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
Also them simply arguing that it might be possible that the universe is eternal isn't very meaningful than if they provided hard science that proved it or at least made it more likely than not. All they have is speculation
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Re-initiation of the conundrum by FLRW.


Maybe this Universe is a re-initiation of the previous Universe, etc etc.

GOD principle.

Something from Nothing.

Once upon a time.

GOD damn it.

BOOM


Recoil!


#5
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,842
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
"I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said.

If we're after the ultimate origin of everything, however, invoking the laws of physics doesn't quite do the trick. It may get us one step closer, but it doesn't take us all the way, Filippenko said.

"The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said.

The article doesn't really say anything new, it speculates that prior to the big bang the "laws of physics" existed and just replaces Where did the universe come from? with Where did the laws of physics come from?

#6
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,842
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@n8nrgim
Also them simply arguing that it might be possible that the universe is eternal isn't very meaningful than if they provided hard science that proved it or at least made it more likely than not. All they have is speculation
Actually, they are not arguing that the universe is eternal, they appear to be doing nothing but semantics.

Here is FLRW's point:

Believing in God is unscientific, it’sbelieving in a transcendent reality beyond time and space, it’s believing inthe existence of a timeless, pre-existing consciousness without physical formthat is just true by definition and that necessarily existed and is describedas infinite and singular.  In the beginning,this consciousness had a thought and there was some kind of mentaltransubstantiation whereby that thought took on substance and the physicaluniverse came into existence… that’s scientifically impossible, and you have tobe scientific of course.

Scientifically speaking, the real basis of the universe isconceptual or mathematical, but without a mind for the mathematics or conceptsto occur in, they just pre-existed without physical form in some kind oftranscendent reality beyond time and space.  In the beginning was a deep mathematical structure that istrue by definition and which necessarily existed, and from it the physicaluniverse arose.  Now,according to science, when you apply relativity and quantum theory to theprimordial nothing you get a cosmic loophole big enough for all creation tojump through. In some kind of mathematical transubstantiation, there was aquantum fluctuation whereby our numbers took on substance and became physicallyreal...and the physical universe came into existence.

See the difference?
Topic's author
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker

Well stated.
#8
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,842
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
Also them simply arguing that it might be possible that the universe is eternal isn't very meaningful than if they provided hard science that proved it or at least made it more likely than not. All they have is speculation
Actually, they are not arguing that the universe is eternal, they appear to be doing nothing but semantics.

Here is FLRW's point:

Believing in God is unscientific, it’sbelieving in a transcendent reality beyond time and space, it’s believing inthe existence of a timeless, pre-existing consciousness without physical formthat is just true by definition and that necessarily existed and is describedas infinite and singular.  In the beginning,this consciousness had a thought and there was some kind of mentaltransubstantiation whereby that thought took on substance and the physicaluniverse came into existence… that’s scientifically impossible, and you have tobe scientific of course.

Scientifically speaking, the real basis of the universe isconceptual or mathematical, but without a mind for the mathematics or conceptsto occur in, they just pre-existed without physical form in some kind oftranscendent reality beyond time and space.  In the beginning was a deep mathematical structure that istrue by definition and which necessarily existed, and from it the physicaluniverse arose.  Now,according to science, when you apply relativity and quantum theory to theprimordial nothing you get a cosmic loophole big enough for all creation tojump through. In some kind of mathematical transubstantiation, there was aquantum fluctuation whereby our numbers took on substance and became physicallyreal...and the physical universe came into existence.

See the difference?
Allof this is unobservable, and even better than that, it is alsounfalsifiable, so it must be true.
#9
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,084
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed ergo, the scenario of occupied space coming into existence from Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts { ergo math } is illogical, lack of common sesnse critical thinking.

Naught is created nor destroyed only transformed eteranally.

The issues how then do we explain Roger Penrose proof of Einsteins G Relativity math via Schwarzchild, that, photons come become null geodesic incompleteness aka singularity inside black holes. 

So the math says thats what happen inside black holes, yet some black holes evaporate.  What occupied space information is carried forward eternally?

All that is possible to exist is what is carried forward in transformation.   Ive clearly explained one option as to how this occurs.

Ive shown how our the big bang { Dark Bang and Dark Inflation  } occur all Quantum Space-time Tori of finite Universe, have observed { quantised }
sine-wave-associated,  physical reality, that  appears from inner, negative Dark Energy  geodesic )(, surface  field of nodal events of Quantum Space-time Tori, and then,

that sine-wave of reality, ---in each and every Quantum Space-time Torus----, move towards, the outer, positive, Gravitational geodesic (   )  surface field of nodal events, of all Quantum Space-time Tori.

Here below we see in 2D version, --- in a newer more simplified form { for understanding more eassly }--- to show the sine-wave disintegrating into outer Gravity field, only to travel the geodesic to the inner Dark Energy field.  This below leaves out some of specifics of Quantum Space-time Toroidal Gedeosics, so as to be complicated for those who could not follow my previous expressions.

*...........................................Outer Gravity Surface Field.............................................................loops back to self  on surface of torus
-.........OB.............................................................................................................................^v^v ...loops back to self inside torus
-.........OB..............................................................................................................^v^v ..................loops back to self inside torus
- .........OB.............................................................................................^v^v..................................loops back to self inside torus
-.........OB...........................................................................^v^v.....................................................loops back to self inside torus
-.........OB........................................................^v^v......................................................................loops back to self inside torus
-.........OB......................................^v^..........................................................................................loops back to self inside torus
-..Observed Reality........^v............................................................................................................loops back to self inside torus
*.....................................................Inner Dark Energy Surface Field...........................................loops back to self on surface of torus

This above expression does not exhibit the geodesics between Outer Gravity surface of torus and inner Dark Energy surface.

A bisection of such torus shows these geodesics, at least partially OO or as (  )(  ), as using texticonic characters is best I have to offer over the years since I first developed these scenarios.
Topic's author
#10
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc

Well stated.
#11
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,842
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
The problem with these “scientific” first cause analyses is that in the end we are just conjuring with mathematics here, when nature doesn’t exist yet, principles can’t exist yet either, if “nothing” exists then there are no states and no principles of laws and it’s impossible to say what might come into existence or how it might occur.  An initial state of “nothing” falls completely outside of the four-dimensional frame of reference of science. All we can do is postulate a transcendent reality from which our reality causally manifested, but it would necessarily fall outside of the frame of reference of the calculations being done, we can’t really apply the principles of this reality to a reality that transcends all of the principles that these calculations are built on.

Big Bang Cosmology states that time and space came into existence with the Big Bang, therefore there is not aspatial or temporal framework for any mathematical process to occur in, withoutspace or time, there simply can't be any process.  By definition, it must be an uncaused event, those who postulate the Universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation aren't recognizing that there was no space for a quantum fluctuation to occur in, and there was no time in which the quantumfluctuation could occur. 
#12
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,842
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
This is not to say we can't speculate about it, and apparently, we are constitutionally organized to do so, but we can’t really accurately represent it within the four-dimensional framework of science. All we can really say about it is that any prior existence you did postulate would have to be postulated as a given, it would absolutely defy description since you could not apply the terms of time and space to it, and consequently, it would be rationally incomprehensible and logically transcendent. It could not be based on evidence, its existence would be a matter of faith, and it would not be in any way subject to a logical "proof" within the scientific frame of reference. This existence could only be described by analogy because words are relative things that can't adequately describe absolute or transcendent concepts; the "ultimate reality" being described would necessarily have to be timeless rather than everlasting, universally present rather than infinite in space, uncaused and therefore eternally changeless. This would all have to fall completely outside the realm of science because objective knowledge of it would be impossible, it could not be approached from any ordinary, finite point of reference, and therefore it could never be fully grasped in any fixed form. This is not to say it cannot be conceived of, or that it does not exist, and we should recognize that the vast majority of mankind has postulated just such a transcendent entity as existing, and in general they have described it in much the same way. 
#13
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
The problem with these “scientific” first cause analyses is that in the end we are just conjuring with mathematics here, when nature doesn’t exist yet, principles can’t exist yet either, if “nothing” exists then there are no states and no principles of laws and it’s impossible to say what might come into existence or how it might occur.  An initial state of “nothing” falls completely outside of the four-dimensional frame of reference of science. All we can do is postulate a transcendent reality from which our reality causally manifested, but it would necessarily fall outside of the frame of reference of the calculations being done, we can’t really apply the principles of this reality to a reality that transcends all of the principles that these calculations are built on.

Big Bang Cosmology states that time and space came into existence with the Big Bang, therefore there is not aspatial or temporal framework for any mathematical process to occur in, withoutspace or time, there simply can't be any process.  By definition, it must be an uncaused event, those who postulate the Universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation aren't recognizing that there was no space for a quantum fluctuation to occur in, and there was no time in which the quantumfluctuation could occur. 
well stated 
#14
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,042
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
i know we've had this debate here before... but it's fair to look at the universe, and based on its situation, conclude that something other than the universe may have or even probably did cause it. i know from there it'd still be a stretch to get into God arguments, but to argue that the universe has a cause other than itself, is fair. 
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,076
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Yes, its fair to say that universe had a cause.

Given how shitty the universe is, it is good to conclude it was created by shitty and unintelligent thing.

Christian God is shitty and unreasonable God, so yes, we might even assume that something similar to Christian God would be the creator, as least something similarly unreasonable, angry and shitty.
Topic's author
#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

OMG, are you saying something might have pooped the Universe?
#17
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,076
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
Well, the universe does seem like it came out of someone's ass.
Topic's author
#18
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

Tru dat !
#19
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
No one knows jack shit about how the universe came to be. Yes, even people who believe in god.
#20
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,076
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
Pretending to know is an evolutionary advantage. It makes people think you smart, which raises your social position.
#21
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,842
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@sadolite
No one knows jack shit about how the universe came to be. Yes, even people who believe in god.
It's turtles all the way down.
#22
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,084
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Well Ernest, it is just another scenario  ---amognest a few out there---   that is resultant o logical common sense critical thinking pathways of thought.

What I did not add in, was a rough draft of inaccurrate time line for initial Big Bang from Dark Energy over billions of years before our sine-wave associated reality totally eachings entropic ending and distingrateds into outer Gravitataional field, only to follow a spiral geodesic , through the flat neutral equator of torus on its way to the inner Dark Energy Field.

*...........................................Outer Gravity Surface Field.............................................................loops back to self  on surface of torus
-.........OB............80o Bl. Yr. etc...............................................................................................^v^v ...loops back to self inside torus
-.........OB...........200...Bl. Yr...........................................................................................^v^v ...........loops back to self inside torus
- .........OB..........100 Bl. Yr.............................................................................^v^v............................loops back to self inside torus
-.........OB...........20 Bl. Yr...........................................................^v^v................................................loops back to self inside torus
-.........OB...........10 Bl. yr.........................................^v^v...................................................................loops back to self inside torus
-.........OB............5 Ml. yr.........................^v^.....................................................................................loops back to self inside torus
-..Observed Reality........^v........Dark Inflation period.....................................................................loops back to self inside torus
*.....................................................Inner Dark Energy Surface Field..................................................loops back to self on surface of torus

Here at add in speculative time line, with myself being considerate of accuraccy, or future end entropic end date for this regenerative cycling of big big >> big dissapations into positive geodesic Gravity and then around>(    )(    ) > and  back to negative geodesic )(  Dark Energy.

The other thing to remmeber, is that the myriad set of Quantum Space-time tori on the outer perimter of Universe, always have outer positive geodesic Gravity curvature as the outer  most perimeter of Universe, pulling-inward, back to Dark Energy Field.

IF this scenario  or any like it ---etc R penorse's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology--- is not based on my  numerically sequential  { think cause > effect } spiral, duo-invaginated { creates sine-wave reality } overlapping and interfering Quantum Space-time Tori.

And we never ever see { quantise } outer Gravity geodesic field or inner Dark Energy geodesic field }.  We see only the resultant sine-wave physical reality.

Topic's author
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I guess George Santos just got The Big Bang !
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Who or what converted the waves into noise.

Methinks that it was actually the big silence.

Unless GOD was there with a tape recorder.
Topic's author
#25
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

Who or what converted the waves into noise.
The brain.
#26
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,084
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Who or what converted the waves into noise.
Your misinterpreting existence Zed. I will explain it to you and others again.

Waves are Meta-space geometrical patterns, they are not the occupied space { air water etc } existence, ergo, the waves exist in complement to the occupied space medium. Understand yet?

Methinks that it was actually the big silence.
Silence does not mean no occupied space exists, silence it only means an occupied space that you, I and others are not tuned-into. Turn off the radio etc to hear the silence, and the silence exists cause were not tuned-into the EMRadiation radio vibrations.

Unless GOD was there with a tape recorder.
The finite, occupied space Universe is the non-creator God. All else is fantasy-land of Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego * i *

The Meta-space and occupied space exist in complement to each other eternally.  And there is a third space, and that is the truly non-occupied space that exists outside of the finite occupied space. If finite Universe expands, the the logical common sense critical thinking conclusion is that, it expands into truly non-occupied space or contracts from such truly non-occupied space.

These three eternally exist in complement to each other ergo my Cosmic Trinary Outline/Set. Simple. Not complex to grasp, unless there is an ego issue that blocks logical, common sense critical thinking.

Ex. raise your arm/hand out in front of you. Now move it back and forth laterally. Next make a slight rising and falling of arm/hand as you move it back and forth laterally. This creates a Meta-space mind/intellect/conceptual wave pattern. Now stop moving the arm/hand. Ok?
So now you still see your occupied space arm/hand and we no longer see a Meta-space wave pattern except in our Meta-space mind and that is where the Meta-space pattern was all along before, during and after the arm/hand moved in front of our eyes.

Water is the occupied space medium, like the arm/hand. Water and air etc is not the Meta-space wave pattern.
Topic's author
#27
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,805
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Sorry, I should have said, Our universe could have pooped into existence 13.7 billion years ago.
#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
I was simply suggesting that in the absence of an auditory device there wouldn't have been a bang.
#29
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,084
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
I was simply suggesting that in the absence of an auditory device there wouldn't have been a bang
Sorry Zed if I misinterpreted your comments. All occupied space is vibration ergo a complementary Meta-space, mathematical frequency.

Auditory relates to those biologic's that can hear specific frequency of occupied space vibrations / frequencies

Here I paraphrase Bucky Fuller, whom met Einstein in late 20's or so to get permission to publish his first book --4D timelock--  Fuller recounts that meeting in Fullers last book Cosmography

..' all that exists is moderation/modification of frequency '....

.. ' all that exists is interfering and non-interfering patterns operating in pure principle '......

Fuller leaves us with the idea that finite occupied space Universe is what he and others called  ' meta-physical ', and ive refined that definitions to be specific to another primary occupied space that humans have not ---and probably never will---  quantization of Gravity  geodesically inward contraction (  )  and Dark Energy geodesic outward expansion )(.

Mathematical quantification is a seperate from quantization.  Lee Smolin of Loop Quantum Gravity fame, predicted back in 90's { ? }, that humans would mathematically quantify Gravity within 15 years.  That has not happened. 

I believe I have quantified Gravity and Dark Energy ---two sides of the same coin/torus --   via numerical and  2D geometrical patterning, that is defined by 14 nodal events and should be considered as quantum pulsation, not a Quantum Space-time Torus.

These 14 nodal events exist within a minimal, 3D, Quantum Space-time Torus composed of 18 nodal events and I can show this in 2D patterning, but dong have graphic ability to present in 3D. My bad.
#30
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,084
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Sorry, I should have said, Our universe could have pooped into existence 13.7 billion years ago.
FL, in a way that is kinda of relevant to low entropy and biologics being creating higher entropy.  To consider a little of this, go to 18:56 or so --further back a little more to understand the biologic aspect---   and watch til he mentions that, no one knows why early Universe would have such low entropy ---i.e. very uniform with any variation of uniformity temperature being no more than  0.001% 

Go further to learn about entropy of black holes predicted by Jacob Bekenstien and later confirmed by S Hawking.Go to 21:25 and watch a litlle